Heavier than air?

Won’t amount to a Damn thing?

does this picture answer your question?

Thanks for uploading the image, and apologies of I’m being dense; but those are TU22s. How does that address the initial question?

“On 27 Sep 83, the RAF lost its first Tornado. ZA 586 from IX Sqn crashed at night, some 5nm N of Kings Lynn. Memory slightly faded, but I think the aircraft went out of control following an unexplained total electrics failure. The nav ejected, but the pilot (Sqn Ldr Mike Stevens) went in with the aircraft; at the time, there was concern that he may have been unable to eject due to the airflow pinning his arms outside the cockpit (the canopy having been blown off as the nav ejected). It was decided that the only way to alleviate pilots’ understandable fears over this issue was for BAe to remove the canopy from one of its aircraft and fly it minus navigator (for safety reasons), with the pilot stretching his arms into the airflow at slowly increasing airspeeds. This was done successfully, disproving the possibility that, with the loss of the canopy, the pilot would be unable to reach the ejection handle.

Keith Hartley was the pilot, and received an AFC for his efforts.”

from Facebook!!

I’m not going to lie. I’m still not certain. Is that a ****-take after-the-fact caption. Or is that the gen dit?

Well that’s okay then. You can look great whilst dying.

Ah the unbridled joy of smart **** selective quotation

same difference.
Air force planes tend to be better than their usn counterparts

f-35A > f-35C
F-16 > F-18
F-101 > F-8
etc

I fully agree (as it’s self-evident and I’m not a complete buffoon all of the time) that there is a weight gain (penalty) to carrier ops; what with the beefier undercarriage, smaller stock of drop tanks and need for a stronger airframe (especially the keel) but I would not agree with all of those comparisons

F18 has two engines (again perhaps more of a necessity for carrier ops than landbased), had decent air to ground much earlier and had BVR from the get go. (Admittedly we all know that USAF F16s didn’t have this for internal and political rather than technical reasons). Would I point blank say that F16 is better than F18? No. Although I’d happily see it as a better dogfighter.

Similarly the F14 had a massive advantage in BVR (caveat: the infamous simultaneous six missile interception has now had doubt cast upon it and Phoenix was by all accounts a pig for maintenance). So although the mighty F15 was my favourite plane as a kid and much easier on the eye and has a superior dogfighting record (and so a convincing claim to be the better air superiority fighter) was it out and out better than the F14? Maybe that was one that you deliberately omitted from your list?

Also F4 > anything USAF had in service and so bought in huge numbers?

What about another way? If the USAF could only have one fastjet and the USN only one fastjet. What choice then?

F4 or A4 or F8?
F15 or F16?
F14 or F18?

I really don’t get the point of threads like this other than a magnet for dumb arguements.

A coffee vs tea thread would be about as useful.
Despite my nation’s preference, I’m taking tea. Cheaper unit cost, more effective in close proximity to sinuses, somewhat less effective caffeine delivery system.

I go for decaff coffee personally

Ever since I read a paper* that the ‘pick up’ effect of Caffeine only happens with your first cup of the day. The rest of the time you’re just (ur jst for the youngsters) maintaining the same level of alertness that non-caffeine drinkers have all day. And the reason for that ‘pick up effect is that overnight the caffeine metabolises and one has less ‘energy’** and ‘spark’ than a non-caffeine drinker. (Although after that first cup ur lvlz do increase above a smug person’s)

*inspired I shall be honest by an episode of QI which claimed the same
** I know that’s the wrong word

Given the glacial pace of Indian defence procurement my money is on a sixth gen design being available before India is ready to pay for and take delivery of anything new

As I understand it: Wing Loading

Although the Jag was designed for fairly short take off from not perfect strips (hence the beefiest undercarriage West of the Iron Curtain) in practice the high wing loading (for stability at low level) made landing and take off from flat tops a tricky proposition with very little margin for error