|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, it was an F-16.
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
heart breaking http://news.usni.org/2014/12/22/navy-pays-texas-ship-breaker-penny-dismantle-carrier-ranger
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
It's an inflated and bullshit claim that F-16s are more likely to crash. There's just a lot more of them operating, which makes mishaps more common relative to other airframes. Being a single engine aircraft does inflate the mishap rate slightly. People like to impose this "lawn dart" narrative onto the jet without actually thinking over why the frequency of mishaps seems inflated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
F16 is also considered to be the easiest plane to fly out of all modern fighter craft. But yeah, kinda funny that the numerical amount of F16 crashes is brought up without mentioning the vastness of its service worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
From the Russian.jpeg thread, some SU-27(?) action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:It's an inflated and bullshit claim that F-16s are more likely to crash. There's just a lot more of them operating, which makes mishaps more common relative to other airframes. Being a single engine aircraft does inflate the mishap rate slightly. The lawn dart thing is overblown, but its average destroyed rate per flight hour is still the worst of all fighters still in service in the USAF and its average fatality rate is second only to the A-10. Source: http://www.afsec.af.mil/organizations/aviation/aircraftstatistics/index.asp edit: haha, the stats for the F-35 are funny, largely because it's in development and hasn't yet killed anyone. Pristine Class-A rates. Awful Class-B rates. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The lawn dart thing is overblown, but its average destroyed rate per flight hour is still the worst of all fighters still in service in the USAF and its average fatality rate is second only to the A-10. And the F-16 has a cumulative total of nearly more than 4,000 flight hours (~10,000) than the F-15, which clocks in at ~6,000 flight hours. And for the sake of accurate comparison, the USAF doesn't operate any other single-engine fighters. This very well may be the price of admission for a single-engine fighter. The USAF operates over 1,200 Falcons and over 230 F-15's. Mishap rates are bound to be higher by virtue of fleet size as well. bloops fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
As a result of the single engine, in my experience F-16 maintainers were all a little anal. F-15 maintainers were a little more cavalier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:And the F-16 has a cumulative total of nearly more than 4,000 flight hours (~10,000) than the F-15, which clocks in at ~6,000 flight hours. And for the sake of accurate comparison, the USAF doesn't operate any other single-engine fighters. This very well may be the price of admission for a single-engine fighter. It may be the price of admission, who knows? It's hard to compare numbers with something like the Gripen (different nations, different jobs, different flight hours, Gripen hasn't killed anyone yet I guess), and the F-35 is too young to really count. Given that every-loving-one will be flying the F-35 soon enough, we'll get all kinds of fun safety data over the next few decades. edit: quote:The USAF operates over 1,200 Falcons and over 230 F-15's. Mishap rates are bound to be higher by virtue of fleet size as well. Not really. Raw number, yes. But rate is per flight hour, and having a small number does not inherently bump up your safety rate. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Even then drawing an accurate comparison isn't as easy as just looking at data. Advancements in metallurgy, engine tech, engineering, etc all play a role. Who's to say the F-16 engineered with today's knowledge wouldn't result in a safer jet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Even then drawing an accurate comparison isn't as easy as just looking at data. Advancements in metallurgy, engine tech, engineering, etc all play a role. Who's to say the F-16 engineered with today's knowledge wouldn't result in a safer jet? Sure, which is why I'm not comparing to single-engine fighters retired soon after Vietnam, which had pretty rough rates. But the F-35 will coexist with various modern 2-engine fighters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Sure, which is why I'm not comparing to single-engine fighters retired soon after Vietnam, which had pretty rough rates. But the F-35 will coexist with various modern 2-engine fighters. The Raptor and -35 are most likely near equal in terms of modernity. Every other fighter might as well be from the stone age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Micr0chiP posted:From the Russian.jpeg thread, some SU-27(?) action. MiG-29
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Micr0chiP posted:From the Russian.jpeg thread, some SU-27(?) action. Sure that isn't a two-seat MiG-29? edit: GODHOLIO! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Micr0chiP posted:From the Russian.jpeg thread, some SU-27(?) action. She'll get a sunburn if she straddles that thing too long. That's also quite possibly a MiG-35, not -29. It looks slightly larger than a Fulcrum, but then again, who's looking at the plane? Also, there have only been three -35's built, and most of them are decked out in gaudy "seriously, this isn't a Fulcrum" livery, so it might just be a late-model -29. =/ BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The Raptor and -35 are most likely near equal in terms of modernity. Every other fighter might as well be from the stone age. That's why I used the future tense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
That Russian thread is amazing. I've been watching that guy catch the log with his face for like 90 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
david_a posted:Are you saying F-16s are unreliable, hard to fly, and/or worn out? (Not being sarcastic; I have no idea) Or just that it should have been flying so high/fast that ISIS would have a hell of a time hitting it? Jordanian F-16 are likely less reliable and more worn out than USAF ones. Looking it up on Wikipedia, they're all second-hand A and B models.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
Those MLU'd Vipers aren't nearly as decrepit as, say, the Venezuelan F-16s though. AFAIK ours (Dutch) were able to do their thing over Serbia and A'stan just as well as the US ones, bar a somewhat delayed JDAM integration and the need for new targeting pods. Allegedly losing such a plane to MANPADS (though I wouldn't for a second believe it was an OG Strela) in tyool 2014 smells like a training, doctrine, or lack of suitable PGMs issue to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
I'm a bit surprised that USAF has so few F-15s when compared to the Falcons. Well, "few" might not be the correct word here, but you get the point. For some reason I have a massive hardon for the phrase "air superiority".
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Micr0chiP posted:From the Russian.jpeg thread, some SU-27(?) action. If she was straddling my missile, it wouldn't be inert. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Post your christmas airpower pics.    Not really christmas, but w/e: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:She'll get a sunburn if she straddles that thing too long. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:
It's a Kh-31, Sunburns are a lot larger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:I'm a bit surprised that USAF has so few F-15s when compared to the Falcons. Well, "few" might not be the correct word here, but you get the point. For some reason I have a massive hardon for the phrase "air superiority". Vipers were much cheaper. Same reason we're buying so many F-35s but a fraction of the F-22s requested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Vipers were much cheaper. Same reason we're buying so many F-35s but a fraction of the F-22s requested. F-35s are cheaper than F-22s? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Yeah, but the gap is a LOT smaller than it was supposed to be. Which is completely unsurprising.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:F-35s are cheaper than F-22s? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:As a result of the single engine, in my experience F-16 maintainers were all a little anal. A-10 mech's give no fucks I have worked with maintainers from all diffrent airframes A-10 guys are the coolest followed by 15 guys and 16 guys are straight babies. I'm A-10 guy btw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Greataval posted:A-10 mech's give no fucks I have worked with maintainers from all diffrent airframes A-10 guys are the coolest followed by 15 guys and 16 guys are straight babies. I'm A-10 No one with an AFSC that starts with 2 is cool btw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
I'd like to thank every crew chief for graciously accepting all of my write ups.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
You make it sound like that actually happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Greataval posted:A-10 mech's give no fucks I have worked with maintainers from all diffrent airframes A-10 guys are the coolest followed by 15 guys and 16 guys are straight babies. I'm A-10 guy btw. How does one get on the good side of a maintainer? Are doughnuts involved or does it require some blood ritual where man, machine, and maintainer combine into one thinking, feeling object of bloodlust and pain? Y'all want some coffee boxes from dunkin? Extra napkins?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Suspect Bucket posted:How does one get on the good side of a maintainer? Are doughnuts involved or does it require some blood ritual where man, machine, and maintainer combine into one thinking, feeling object of bloodlust and pain? Bring the jet back Code 1, and they'll give you candy (and maybe a hug and a quick grope.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Leaving us alone is generally a good start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Suspect Bucket posted:How does one get on the good side of a maintainer? Are doughnuts involved or does it require some blood ritual where man, machine, and maintainer combine into one thinking, feeling object of bloodlust and pain? I'm a mere civilian pilot, but I guarantee it's no different in the military when it comes to the relationship between pilots and mechanics. First, don't be a dickhead. They want you, your dumb face and your dumb airplane out of their hair and out of the hangar just as fast as you want to be on your way, so impatience on the part of a pilot is not only counterproductive, but pretty insulting too. Think of it this way...you're making dinner and your SO can't stop bitching about how slow you're going and how hungry they are - it would piss you off no end, wouldn't it? On that note, try not to bother the mechanics while they're working...they know what they're doing, you as a pilot probably don't. If you do want to watch, make sure you ask before, and make sure you're doing it in such a way that it doesn't feel like you're micro-managing them. Second, don't be an idiot. Writing "the plane makes a funny squeak" in the logbook doesn't help anyone - if it's a simple thing, write it up simply. If it isn't, try to find someone in maintenance who has some time, go over the symptoms and write it up with their help. Failing that, just provide as much information as you can in your write-up without rewriting War and Peace. Further to that, just because you're wearing gold stripes on your shoulders and they're wearing a greasy pair of overalls doesn't mean that you know more about your airplane than they do, so it pays to shut up and listen when a mechanic tells you something pertaining to your aircraft. As for the coffee thing, by all means do it, but do it as an appreciation of someone going over and above the call of duty rather than as a form of flattery. If a mechanic/group of mechanics stayed late/worked in lovely weather/got called in on their day off to fix something, show them your appreciation for their effort. Really, it just comes down to courtesy - put yourself in their position for a moment. When you're at work, do you want to be browbeat every step of the way? Do you want someone unqualified in your task offering advice on how to do your job? Do you want to be given a task so nebulous that you don't even know where to begin? The same things apply here as they do in any other field.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
TL;DR: Use your common sense and don't be a prick. I know it sounds corny, but in aviation , both in civil and military it is important that all the sides work well together, from the pilots to mechanics to the cargo loaders to air traffic control. Everyone is important in ensuring that the aircraft and the payload get there and back again in one piece. I would like to think most pilots understand the importance of all the work that goes into making sure that they might have a smooth flight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
MrChips posted:On that note, try not to bother the mechanics while they're working...they know what they're doing I do sales and rentals at a small engine shop part time and this wisdom still applies. I can fix a lot of simple gremlins instead of piling it on the mechanics' workloads, and I'm probably gonna charge less because I'm doing it for the express purpose of being nice to a customer. Even still, I have to hold my tongue when an impatient meddler wants to stand over my shoulder as I go through troubleshooting his chainsaw or whatever. Most humans are clueless how these simple machines work, I can't imagine what hubris level you'd have to achieve to think butting into an aircraft mechanic's realm would help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Scut posted:I do sales and rentals at a small engine shop part time and this wisdom still applies. I can fix a lot of simple gremlins instead of piling it on the mechanics' workloads, and I'm probably gonna charge less because I'm doing it for the express purpose of being nice to a customer. Even still, I have to hold my tongue when an impatient meddler wants to stand over my shoulder as I go through troubleshooting his chainsaw or whatever. Most humans are clueless how these simple machines work, I can't imagine what hubris level you'd have to achieve to think butting into an aircraft mechanic's realm would help. I work in IT and if it's one thing that absolutely makes me want to sterilize the entire human race is when a total newb in computer asks for my help (as a favour, he doesn't intend to pay me or even offer me a favour in return) and then proceeds to question or contradict everything I tell him. Last time I just told a colleague, "you asked me for help, shut the gently caress up and take it". That shut him up for a few minutes at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
no I will NOT fix your computer
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 15:44
|
|
