F-14 vs F-15 vs F-16

[renrich]

FLYBOY, Do you believe that new manufactured F14s with all the latest electronics and new electrical systems could have alleviated most of the maintenance issues?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FLYBOY, Do you believe that new manufactured F14s with all the latest electronics and new electrical systems could have alleviated most of the maintenance issues?

No - it was the way the aircraft was designed for hardware maintenance - engine removal, fuel tank access, access to airframe system is what made the plane hard to work on. Most of the complaints I heard voiced about the F-14 were from airframers and powerplant guys.

 

[SoD Stitch]

On the F14 subject, the Tomcat driver I had the conversation with at the air show in Gunc had a F14D(or B, whichever one had the GE engines) there, he had flown over from Fallon.

Actually, both the "B" and the "D" had the F-110's. The difference was (mainly) with the radar systems; the "B" still had the older AWG-9, while the "D" got the newer, digital AN/APG-71.

 

[Soren]

Soren - just a brief comment. I was the first one to mention Mustang in the context of UNRELIABLE airspeed indicators. When you posed the '1100 kmh' reference for the me 262 I first asked you if that means you believe Mustang encounter reports that claimed 'I was doing 620 mph in the dive'.

I call those reports 'unreliable' and tried to use that as a reason for you to not accept anecdotal recounts of Mach 1 achievement on face value based on instrument readings.

That was the context. I brought anecdotal references to speeds that did not exist based on flawed transonic instrumentation..

Funny you say that cause that's not how I see it at all Bill. It may have been in context for you, but it certainly wasn't for me, and your remark that I had claimed ANYTHING regarding the P-51's critical mach number was and is still false.

You misinterpreted what I said and called me a liar for bringing the Mustang up as YOUR reference - which I did not do. Go back a couple of pages from that 'delicate statement' and read what I said.

I read it all Bill.

Many times you make an unequivocal statement and get angry when someone questions you - then it goes down hill. Most of our battles result when you step into a subject that you don't fully understand or have all the facts and aerodynamics and Structures and aeroelasticity are included in that field.

Lol, I understand areoelasticity and the effects it has, and I always have in the time we've been discussing on this forum Bill. You will however, like in the sound barrier thread, either claim I said something I didn't or just boldly claim I didn't know anything on the subject beforehand your mentioning of it, even when I mentioned it BEFORE you did.

I respect your knowledge Bill, and I've also made it clear that you know more about airplane aerodynamics than I do, but that doesn't change the fact that I still know much of it myself.

I called you out on your 'stream tube' theory as you either copied it or composed it yourself - without understanding what really controls the physics and the theory of lifting lines and tip vortices.

You haven't called me out on anything Bill, that again is just you claiming to have discovered a mistake that I really didn't make, because if you read my post I said:
"The span-loading is according to some a good indicator of turn performance as an a/c rides on a cylindrical tube of air "

Bill the above is more of a question than anything else, one which you should've answered and explained with your knowledge instead of taking it as a claim from my side.

You see that's the reason our debates often go downhill Bill, you will take anything I say wordright and not even try to understand the truth behind the statements.

In the "lift-loading" debate all you needed to say was:
"Hehe Soren, the term lift-loading is actually a definition of something else than you explain, but reading what you say I understand what you mean, but you're using the wrong terminology"

Now that would've been constructive Bill. But instead you choose to hammer me down claiming that I "babble" and calling me god knows what including "bonehead".

And on top of that you're master of brewing so many false claims regarding what I have said or claim together in ONE post that I find it such a time consuming task to straighten out each claim one by one that I just don't bother answering back.

Bottom line is I wish to learn as much as everyone else here, but not by being talked down to in the process. And while I don't know as much about airplane aerodynamics as you Bill I still know a lot of the subject facts.

If you respect me then I will respect you Bill, I promise.

 

[Soren]

And neither are you!

Besides 90% of the time you start the flaming! It is so pathetic that you are blind to it. You can do no wrong!

No Adler I am not blind to the fact that I have been acting arrogant, you've made realize when and where and I have apologized to the whole board of moderators for it in a PM to you recently.

And call me blind but I don't start flaming others 90% of the time, but snide remarks can trigger me. I apologize.

As for doing nothing wrong, I have made mistakes and I always admit to them, and if you'd care to look you'll find that to actually be true. I am merely a human like everyone else here, so I make mistakes, it's inevitable.

That having been said I love this forum and the members of it, I'e learned A LOT in the 4 years I've been here and I really cheerish folks such as you, FLYBOYJ, Matt, Les, KoolKitty, Evan, Erich, Udet, Bill (Believe it or not you nitpicker ), Thorlifter, Njaco, Lucky, Wurger, Plan_D, Micdrow, Kurfurst, Syscom, Parsifal, Delcyros, Charles etc etc etc (it's impossible to remember all so quick) who I believe I have had the most interesting discussions with.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That having been said I love this forum and the members of it, I'e learned A LOT in the 4 years I've been here and I really cheerish folks such as you, FLYBOYJ, Matt, Les, KoolKitty, Evan, Erich, Udet, Bill (Believe it or not you nitpicker ), Thorlifter, Njaco, Lucky, Wurger, Plan_D, Micdrow, Kurfurst, Syscom, Parsifal, Delcyros, Charles etc etc etc (it's impossible to remember all so quick) who I believe I have had the most interesting discussions with.

 

[drgondog]

Bottom line is I wish to learn as much as everyone else here, but not by being talked down to in the process. And while I don't know as much about airplane aerodynamics as you Bill I still know a lot of the subject facts.

If you respect me then I will respect you Bill, I promise.

That works for me

 

[Messy1]

Now if only the Democrats and Republicans could come to such a mutual agreement, things would be much better in this country!

 

[mkloby]

Is everyone going to start hugging now???

 

[renrich]

I sure hope not. I am kind of old fashioned as I believe men should only hug women. All this men hugging men makes me wonder.

 

[Marcel]

Relax Renrich, it's just a virtual

 

[parsifal]

A good start...give him some airspace guys

 

[Burmese Bandit]

First, exactly how did a F-14, 15, 15 thread get into the WW II section of this forum???

Oh well, since it's here, for my two cents it's the 15. But I agree with Comiso 90.

 

[ummonk]

None of the above. Su-27.

Anyways, if I have to choose between those three it is f-15.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

None of the above. Su-27.

Nothing an F-15 couldn't handle.....

 

[fly boy]

what would happen is the f-16 shoots at the f-14. the f-15 would shoot down the f-16. the f-14 takes down the f-15 and then dies from the f-16 missle

 

[FLYBOYJ]

what would happen is the f-16 shoots at the f-14. the f-15 would shoot down the f-16. the f-14 takes down the f-15 and then dies from the f-16 missle

It would be time to watch Bob the Builder.

 

[evangilder]

I'm glad someone followed that...

 

[109ROAMING]

Thanks for maing me laugh mate

 

[SoD Stitch]

It would be time to watch Bob the Builder.

LOL!

Hey, Adler, got another one for you . . .