F-15's Grounded

[CitationLover]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/05/f15.grounding/index.html

 

[instructordude]

Not suprising at all. It certainly isn't the Falcon.

 

[B-J-J Fighter]

Didn't up fly thr F15 instructordude?

 

[BiffF15]

Not suprising at all. It certainly isn't the Falcon.

Okay, I give. Why do you find this not surprising at all, and why the comparison to the Falcon?

 

[PsubS]

Note to self: no Air Force pilot ever called it a "Falcon."

 

[414Flyer]

Note to self: no Air Force pilot ever called it a "Falcon."

Correct, it must be always referred to as the "Fighting Falcon". Just calling it Falcon sounds lazy and dorky.

 

[Jafo73]

Correct, it must be always referred to as the "Fighting Falcon". Just calling it Falcon sounds lazy and dorky.

I've never heard anyone in the Air Force call it a 'fighting falcon' either...

 

[414Flyer]

Maybe I will need to add some additional smileys next time

 

[Fox-Tree]

I've never heard anyone in the Air Force call it a 'fighting falcon' either...

BZZZZZT!!
I've heard many a fighter pilot (usually non falcon drivers) call it the fighting falcon. As a matter of fact, no self-respecting fighter pilot should call it anything else (unless you go with the informal "lawn dart", "pork falcon" or just "porker"). Falcon's the offical AF name for the jet. You must be thinking of the pilots that call it some other name that starts with a "V". That name was made up by the early drivers who didn't like the official AF name. Kind of like giving yourself a cool callsign at your naming ceremony instead of the one you really deserve.

 

[Future SNA]

Base, gear down, single-engine.

 

[NewmanF16]

Thud, Hun, Rhino, Warthog/Hog, Bone, Stinkbug, Mud Hen, Sparkvark, Deuce, Six, Buff, Spad, Ramptor, Viper...and I'm sure there are more. It seems most self-respecting pilots rename their jets when the official name just doesn't fit (or sucks, for that matter).

 

[Fox-Tree]

Thud, Hun, Rhino, Warthog/Hog, Bone, Stinkbug, Mud Hen, Sparkvark, Deuce, Six, Buff, Spad, Ramptor, Viper...and I'm sure there are more. It seems most self-respecting pilots rename their jets when the official name just doesn't fit (or sucks, for that matter).

Yeah but, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a worse "official" name than that one. - and it's always a good time using it whenever possible to give a little back to our falcon brethren (since we always have to listen to the Kadena crew chief thing I STILL hear about 25+ years later). Cheers.

 

[NewmanF16]

Yeah but, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a worse "official" name than that one. - and it's always a good time using it whenever possible to give a little back to our falcon brethren (since we always have to listen to the Kadena crew chief thing I STILL hear about 25+ years later). Cheers.

Oh, so it was a crew chief now...:laugh:

 

[Fox-Tree]

Oh, so it was a crew chief now...:laugh:

I meant pilot (implied) and his CC. Can't say I know all the details (thankfully) since I think I was still in high school.
This still gets more mileage than the cross-dressing F-16 pilot of the mid-90's. I guess the 90's SNAPs are a little more accepting.

 

[BiffF15]

I meant pilot (implied) and his CC. Can't say I know all the details (thankfully) since I think I was still in high school.
This still gets more mileage than the cross-dressing F-16 pilot of the mid-90's. I guess the 90's SNAPs are a little more accepting.

Actually it was a sex change operation. He went from Sam to Samantha. Just ask the World Famous Mako's, he / she / it was in their squadron.
Every community has their not so secret secrets.
It's usually better to let a dead dog lie.

 

[Scrapdog]

BZZZZZT!!
I've heard many a fighter pilot (usually non falcon drivers) call it the fighting falcon. As a matter of fact, no self-respecting fighter pilot should call it anything else (unless you go with the informal "lawn dart", "pork falcon" or just "porker"). Falcon's the offical AF name for the jet. You must be thinking of the pilots that call it some other name that starts with a "V". That name was made up by the early drivers who didn't like the official AF name. Kind of like giving yourself a cool callsign at your naming ceremony instead of the one you really deserve.

Yeah, I flew the Eagle for a while. Thumped my chest, scoffed every other airframe - standard Eagle Driver bullsh*t. Then I started flying the "Fighting Falcon" i.e. Viper and realized - jesus, I've been missing all this great BOMB dropping and strafing. You know, this stuff is pretty damn awesome. Stuff goes boom, things get quickly turned into hair, teeth, and eyeballs, you get to shoot bullets through it - and the kicker, you don't have to debrief it for 5 hours in good ole' fashion - poke your damn eyeballs out Eagle Driver style. Hey, this air to mud thing is pretty sweet.

Oh, BTW - the single GE motor I flew in the Viper did circles around the absolute piece of garbage PW -100 motor (or motors). Not even on the same charts in categories of response, power, and reliability. The F-15 is a great airplane, but let's set some things straight on the record here.

 

[BiffF15]

The maintainers point of view: Yes, and that single GE motor came out well after the PW F-100-100. Pratts response was to put a DEEC on the engine and make the -220.
Due to the crash rate of the F16's with Pratt F100-100's the USAF put the DEEC mod on them but didn't fund it for the Eagle. The Eagle community only got DEECs after a large push by the Guard community. Studies had shown the mod paid for itself after approx three years on the jet.
The difference between the design of the GE and the Pratt allows for a better thrust to weight (GE) however the Pratt is better from a MX point of view. The Pratt is assembled in three pieces (fan, cumbustor, and AB sections) while the GE is a tube opened along it's length. Should the GE suffer anything greater than small nicks on the front blades it's pulled and sent back to depot. The Pratt allows for swapping out sections and getting most of the engine back into the air quickly (good for keeping jets airborne without a large supply of extra engines).
Pratt followed with the F100-229 which is in the same thrust class as the GE-129 however it's roughly 1000lbs per engine heavier.
The pilots point of view from a guy who has never flown the GE is I would rather have the GE (more thrust, less weight). We don't pull engines, or pay for them so it's not hit from the pilots perspective.
Yes, the Eagle is underpowered by today's standards. But engines, and many other upgrades, were passed over due to the F22 (since the mid 80's).
The F16 community will probably start feeling this type of pinch as the F35 gets closer.

 

[Scrapdog]

The maintainers point of view: Yes, and that single GE motor came out well after the PW F-100-100. Pratts response was to put a DEEC on the engine and make the -220.
Due to the crash rate of the F16's with Pratt F100-100's the USAF put the DEEC mod on them but didn't fund it for the Eagle. The Eagle community only got DEECs after a large push by the Guard community. Studies had shown the mod paid for itself after approx three years on the jet.
The difference between the design of the GE and the Pratt allows for a better thrust to weight (GE) however the Pratt is better from a MX point of view. The Pratt is assembled in three pieces (fan, cumbustor, and AB sections) while the GE is a tube opened along it's length. Should the GE suffer anything greater than small nicks on the front blades it's pulled and sent back to depot. The Pratt allows for swapping out sections and getting most of the engine back into the air quickly (good for keeping jets airborne without a large supply of extra engines).
Pratt followed with the F100-229 which is in the same thrust class as the GE-129 however it's roughly 1000lbs per engine heavier.
The pilots point of view from a guy who has never flown the GE is I would rather have the GE (more thrust, less weight). We don't pull engines, or pay for them so it's not hit from the pilots perspective.
Yes, the Eagle is underpowered by today's standards. But engines, and many other upgrades, were passed over due to the F22 (since the mid 80's).
The F16 community will probably start feeling this type of pinch as the F35 gets closer.

Biff - there is no doubt that Pratt does produce a good product...case in point - the -119's on the F-22 are mega-powered galore and have 99.999% reliability from 1K @ 600 kts to 55K @ M 1.7. They're simply awesome.

My point really is most dudes that have never flown the F-16 tend to scoff it's single motor. That's OK, I did it as well when I was a brainwashed Eagle guy. But once I started flying the F-16 with GE's, I realized that this engine was incredible. I had one engine issue (minor) over 2.5 years of flying the jet before I TX'ed to the F-22. Every engine shop guy loved the GE and spit on the Pratt. The early A model Viper's did have some issues (mainly with the turkey feathers falling off in flight), but that's a distant thing of the past. I'd fly a GE F-16 across the pond anyday of the week - and if you had the chance to fly it, you would as well. Night and day compared to the -100's in the F-15C's.

 

[TXDanno]

... I'd fly a GE F-16 across the pond anyday of the week - and if you had the chance to fly it, you would as well. Night and day compared to the -100's in the F-15C's.

Now if you're talking about crossing the pond, well, you have to choose the GE TF-39 (W/HT90 turbines) powered FRED. Large and in charge. First generation of the high bypass turbofans. A classic. Just like the Commodore 64. They give you FOUR (4) of the old motors, just in case you want to turn one or two of them off. And if you're gonna do that, well why go to Ramstein, just divert into Shannon.

As to the crossing itself, make sure to stop by Franco's by Dover's North Gate, to get the small ham, spinach and cheese calzone. More than enough for the crossing. After you pass 10,000 feet, put the Jump Seater in the front, heat up the pie in the oven, gorge, then take a nice nap in the bunk room. You'll be refreshed for the arrival and landing, and have the energy to race gokarts at the indoor track not far from the base.

Without delving into funding battles, the C-5M SuperGalaxy will make the crossing even better. Maybe 25% more fuel efficient with the CFM-6's, and more reliability and power. Fuel burn alone make return on investment a short order. Less fuel loaded in the tanks means more cargo on the floor. Further leverages Global Reach capabilities, without needing the tanker formation Barney requires.

And that's all I'm going to say about that... for now.

 

[Fox-Tree]

One small point, Scrap.

There is a bit more to a fighter than it's engine(s).

I'm glad you like(d) dropping bombs - maybe you'll get to do it again in the Raptor. I can't stand it and am truly blessed that I got to spend my whole career flying air-to-air. To each his own.

You really can't call someone brainwashed if they've taken the time to evaluate the merits of various airframes. I would value your opinion based on actually flying both airframes. However, all I really got from your post is that bombs are kind of fun and you like the F-16s engine. Would you still take the F-16 over an Eagle in a BVR fight against a 4th gen adversary?

I'd probably fly the F-16 across the pond on your recommendation. I'd still take the Eagle into combat again, any day of the week. I'd have second thoughts about the F-16 and not just because it has one engine.

 

[414Flyer]

Actually it was a sex change operation. He went from Sam to Samantha. Just ask the World Famous Mako's, he / she / it was in their squadron.
Every community has their not so secret secrets.
It's usually better to let a dead dog lie.

One of my friends who flew UH-60s told me a very similar story, about someone going on vacation as Rob and coming back as Rebecca. I wonder if some of those stories are urban legends that get passed around.

 

[wms]

Biff - there is no doubt that Pratt does produce a good product...case in point - the -119's on the F-22 are mega-powered galore and have 99.999% reliability from 1K @ 600 kts to 55K @ M 1.7. They're simply awesome.

My point really is most dudes that have never flown the F-16 tend to scoff it's single motor. That's OK, I did it as well when I was a brainwashed Eagle guy. But once I started flying the F-16 with GE's, I realized that this engine was incredible. I had one engine issue (minor) over 2.5 years of flying the jet before I TX'ed to the F-22. Every engine shop guy loved the GE and spit on the Pratt. The early A model Viper's did have some issues (mainly with the turkey feathers falling off in flight), but that's a distant thing of the past. I'd fly a GE F-16 across the pond anyday of the week - and if you had the chance to fly it, you would as well. Night and day compared to the -100's in the F-15C's.

The -100 and -200 P&Ws are a different animal from the DEEC engines. As a jet mech and crew chief on both the GE and P&W on both the 15 and 16, the DEEC P&Ws were the most reliable. We had so little work on the 100DPs and PW220/220Es that we had a hard time staying proficient, even in the early test days of O&E. However, as GE worked the bugs out of their engines(we were time-changing them at 25 hours in GE in the late 80s) and the P&Ws started getting some time on them, the reliability shifted.

 

[Jafo73]

Now if you're talking about crossing the pond, well, you have to choose the GE TF-39 (W/HT90 turbines) powered FRED. Large and in charge. First generation of the high bypass turbofans. A classic. Just like the Commodore 64. They give you FOUR (4) of the old motors, just in case you want to turn one or two of them off. And if you're gonna do that, well why go to Ramstein, just divert into Shannon.

As to the crossing itself, make sure to stop by Franco's by Dover's North Gate, to get the small ham, spinach and cheese calzone. More than enough for the crossing. After you pass 10,000 feet, put the Jump Seater in the front, heat up the pie in the oven, gorge, then take a nice nap in the bunk room. You'll be refreshed for the arrival and landing, and have the energy to race gokarts at the indoor track not far from the base.

Without delving into funding battles, the C-5M SuperGalaxy will make the crossing even better. Maybe 25% more fuel efficient with the CFM-6's, and more reliability and power. Fuel burn alone make return on investment a short order. Less fuel loaded in the tanks means more cargo on the floor. Further leverages Global Reach capabilities, without needing the tanker formation Barney requires.

And that's all I'm going to say about that... for now.

FRED's engines are nothing but god-awful noise makers. Grossly underpowered!

 

[pkober]

I for one welcome the F-15's to the aircraft falling apart pool. Us in the Herc, or four fans of freedom, antiques rooadshow, etc..., community have had aircraft falling apart for years.

Welcome.

 

[popgoesbubble]

Scapdog

How come the F-22 does not improve on the F-15 top end Speed and Service Ceiling? I read the F-15 tops out at 2.5 mach and 60000 feet. And the F-22 shows around 1.6 mach and 50000 feet? Is this correct or Classified data or does it not really matter anymore when designing fighters. I understand an AIM 120 or R-77 will match speed and Altitude and G's on any fighter and it looks like Air to Air combat is moving back to the late 50's early 60's where you wont get in close to use IR or guns. Do you think Radars IFF are getting to the point where Blue on Blue engagements are not going to be an issue.

I remember the Air force did a test I believe called Aim Val back in the 80's where if you took an F15 and put it up against say a 2nd gen fighter like Mig 21 but match it with R73 /Helmet sight and the test showed that the fight could be won by an less expensive older designed fighter vs a modern 4th Gen fighter when carrying All aspect IR missiles during close in dogfights. So do you still train for and think the F22 would even want to get in a close in dogfight with an Adversary.

 

[BiffF15]

Scapdog

How come the F-22 does not improve on the F-15 top end Speed and Service Ceiling? I read the F-15 tops out at 2.5 mach and 60000 feet. And the F-22 shows around 1.6 mach and 50000 feet? Is this correct or Classified data or does it not really matter anymore when designing fighters. I understand an AIM 120 or R-77 will match speed and Altitude and G's on any fighter and it looks like Air to Air combat is moving back to the late 50's early 60's where you wont get in close to use IR or guns. Do you think Radars IFF are getting to the point where Blue on Blue engagements are not going to be an issue.

I remember the Air force did a test I believe called Aim Val back in the 80's where if you took an F15 and put it up against say a 2nd gen fighter like Mig 21 but match it with R73 /Helmet sight and the test showed that the fight could be won by an less expensive older designed fighter vs a modern 4th Gen fighter when carrying All aspect IR missiles during close in dogfights. So do you still train for and think the F22 would even want to get in a close in dogfight with an Adversary.

Pop,
The F15 was a large leap over the F4. The F22 is several times that difference. It is the number one fighter in the world, and by the looks of things will stay that way for a while. It improves upon everything current fighters do, plus brings stealth, supercruise, and a massive speed advantage. It's hard to kill what you can't see regardless of what type of missiles you are carrying. If you do see it, you are a bleeding swimmer in shark infested waters far from shore and it's probably too late anyway as he (F22 / shark) knows exactly where you are and what you are doing and won't be denied his next meal.
Biff

PS Don't believe everything you read. Some airplanes are impressive on paper yet in all reality aren't so impressive in the air.

 

[mzaharis]

Scapdog

How come the F-22 does not improve on the F-15 top end Speed and Service Ceiling? I read the F-15 tops out at 2.5 mach and 60000 feet. And the F-22 shows around 1.6 mach and 50000 feet?

I'm not Scrapdog, and I've never flown a military aircraft, but here's a quote from the January 7 Aviation Week that discusses the altitude thing from an exercise in Alaska. The article also provides some "independent source" confirmation for what BiffF15 says:

The F-22's operating altitude and additional speed during the Alaska exercise also garnered praise.
"We stayed high because it gives us an extra kinetic advantage with shooting, speed and fuel consumption," Tolliver says. "The Raptor typically flies way higher than everybody else and it handles like a dream at those altitudes." Tolliver wouldn't confirm the operating altitude, but Pentagon officials have put it at 65,000 ft., which is at least 15,000 ft. higher than the other fighters.


(Probably a subscription link)
http://www.aviationweek.com/publica...ml&headline=Raptor+Scores+in+Alaskan+Exercise