The Manalishi

iTrader: (3)

Probably, landing on a carrier throws a wrench into it for sure and the Navy needs a specialized airplane for that. I don't think they can build a plane that will do both the Air Force and the Navy's diverse missions without sacrificing something. The mission and the enviroment those missions are performed in are too different. I forgot to add. You don't want an aircraft with comprimises(sp) when your *** and the success of the mission is on the line.

WarShrike

iTrader: (5)

Yeah, carrier landings take a serious toll on the frame of an aircraft.

The F-22 is an awesome aircraft, even if I originally was rooting for the YF-23 as a kid. But looking back on it, the YF-23 was the billy badass as far as more advanced systems, overall speed and lower radar signature. The F-22 took up the reigns on the maneuverability aspect w/ the vectored thrust.

I'm happy they saw the light of day.

It took the F-18 design a second try to finally get out in production. It got its butt kicked as the YF-17 up against the YF-16. The 16 was just plain better in so many aspects.

StoleIt

iTrader: (3)

I am sure you will never get a straight answer from Hornet vs Viper drivers. Each one will say theirs is obviously better. Kinda like Viper vs Eagle.

But to be fair to the F-35s, each service is getting a slightly different one (well majorly different for the USMC B model). A model (USAF) has an internal gun. B model (USMC) has the V/STOL. C model (USN) has beafy landing gear and longer wings for better low speed handling.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

Wow... gotta be carefull in this thread... lot of BS to watch out for...

Back to StoleIt's original post (which seems like the only post about why this thread was originally started), it sounds like things are continuing to change in the pilot world. I have heard from lots of my friends that have recently graduated UPT that there are less and less T-38 spots. Maybe you'll end up like me and be on the AMC side of things Best of luck to you though, cause I know you are really wanting the Hog. Honestly theres a part of me that still whishes I were in your shoes with the chance to get into the fast movers. But then I am reminded that I am one of the very few lucky ones that get to fly in the USAF period. I am thankfull just for that as its not an easy task.

See you at Columbus!

StoleIt

iTrader: (3)

Here is a breakdown:

T38 drops went from ~25% in 07 to `15% for the 09 classes.


TOTALS

07-10 through 09-08
AD only

T-38
192
20.65%
T-1
549
59.03%
T-44
130
13.98%
UH-1
59
6.34%


total: 930

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

Sounds like they are making it harder and harder to fly uncomfortably

StoleIt

iTrader: (3)

lol! Never heard it put that way, usually just a nice reference to standing up and walking to the bathroom.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

The best was when we'd be tanking guys over the drink and out of boredem while fueling up one of the times the fighter guys would ask "so, did you do anything exciting in the last hour?", and you'd make some remark like, "well lets see, after cooking a steak in the oven, and taking a nap in the bunk, and then taking a dump while in an actual bathroom, I stretched out in one of our reclining chairs and played some PSP", why what did you do in the last hour? To which they would reply with a sigh, "nothing".

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

It's funny seeing both sides between AMC and ACC pilot wise. Everyone on the outside thinks the life of a fighter pilot is the greatest thing in the world. Reality is that yes, they get to go supersonic, and blow **** up, but what you don't hear is the uncomfortable airframe they have to fly compared to the heavies, and that they have to breif for hours and hours both before and after they fly making their days really long, and other than flying, really boring. Plus in the AMC world we get to travel all over the world, most fighter guys train around their local area, maybe go to Red Flag, and then deploy somewhere lousy, and thats it. Not to mention its much harder for them to accumulate hours and fly commercially compared to the guys flying more hours and in larger aircraft in AMC. But then the other side of it is, in the AMC world, we don't get to blow **** up.

StoleIt

iTrader: (3)

You nailed it. Was talking to some C-17 drivers and they bragged about how they briefed for 30 minutes, flew for 8 hours, and then didn't even have a debrief and went home.

Fighters...brief for 3 hours...fly for 3 hours...debrief for 5 hours or so.

But I still wanna blow **** up!!!! While flying in the SLOWEST airplane in the Air Force. I think C-130 slicks might even be faster than hogs.

BigT2002

iTrader: (2)

SOOOO true.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

Gets technical here. The Hog empty is fastest over a standard C-130. Load the A-10 up, then its a turd and slower than a C-130. Slowest of all are the Gunships (AC-130's). Definatly like trying to refuel flying tanks. They are throttle to the firewall while we were boderline keeping altitude and they barely could get on the boom.

Seeing the ACC guys in action, blowing things up, its almost worth all the BS they go through just for your minutes of sweet pure glory. But after the few minutes are over, its nice to be comfortable.

StoleIt

iTrader: (3)

So the AC-130E's are faster than dirty Hog?

Or just AC-130H's? Or is there are difference between the E and the H's?

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

No, all the AC-130's are slower than the Hog (at least they were when we tried to tank them).

earl3

very true, I tried taking a **** in a Viper once.....never again.



and LOL at some of the Raptor comments (though we did peel a tiny bit of some of the coatings off a few early on)

StoleIt

iTrader: (3)

...WHY? Hope you had a piddle pack on...or the crew chief probably strangled you.

earl3

it was a long flight. I had a piddle pack but I only got about halfways through the "process" before I said to hell with it -so yeah, beatdown from the crew chief averted