US Air Supremacy threatened? - Page 2




 
--
 
March 26th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
The F-16 has done that admirably.
March 26th, 2010  
Czin
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
The F-16 has done that admirably.
Yes, and the F-16 is in my book, the best looking airplane ever built. I really like the look of single-tail finned planes a lot more than I do double tail finned. What is the advantage of two tail fins over one again? And if there is any advantage, is it really significant enough for the U.S and Russia to stop developing anymore new single tail finned fighters?
March 27th, 2010  
AVON
 

Topic: Re: US Air Supremacy threatened?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Czin
the F-16 is in my book, the best looking airplane ever built. I really like the look of single-tail finned planes a lot more than I do double tail finned. What is the advantage of two tail fins over one again? And if there is any advantage, is it really significant enough for the U.S and Russia to stop developing anymore new single tail finned fighters?
The F-16 was initially designed with twin tails! You can see what remains where the speed brakes are! The rails back there are strong enough to secure twin tails to. Having a top speed of Mach 1.6 at 30,000-ft. meant the single tail would be sufficient for its needs.
The advantage of the twin tail it provides greater stability at high speeds (Mach 1.5+) and high altitudes. It provides greater rudder control or authority. Also, at high angles of attack (AOA) twin vertical stabilizers are also better.
--
March 27th, 2010  
wolfen
 
Yea but I haven't seen a F-16 that needs twin tails yet, Navy planes have twin tails for low speed maneuvering, we have to have them for carrier take off. only the lighter aircraft have been able to leave a flight deck with one vert stab. or the ones with really big wing surface areas
March 27th, 2010  
AVON
 

Topic: Re: US Air Supremacy threatened?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfen
Navy planes have twin tails for low speed maneuvering, we have to have them for carrier take off. only the lighter aircraft have been able to leave a flight deck with one vert stab. or the ones with really big wing surface areas
Remember the F-4 Phantom 2? It only needed one vertical stabilizor but, the stabilizor was long. Its AOA upon landing on a carrier also, was low.
March 28th, 2010  
wolfen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVON
Remember the F-4 Phantom 2? It only needed one vertical stabilizor but, the stabilizor was long. Its AOA upon landing on a carrier also, was low.

of course I remember the Phantom 2, that replaced my aircraft the phantom 1, I was a AD in the Navy my first engine was a R2800, off an AH1D ina reserve unit at NAS Norfolk, after that I went F4's and them F-14's then helicopters.
The phantom doesn't count as it didn't need more than 1 vert stab, reason being is it also didn't need wings, the Phantom series is living proof that I can make my kids skateboard fly at mach 2 if I put a big enough engine on it.
October 4th, 2010  
muscogeemike
 
The question is interesting and debatable, but did anyone else read the comments the idiots made about the video?
 


Similar Topics
What should fly in the Iraqi Air Force?
Indian Sukhoi to star in US war games
Differences between Army and Air Force
Chinese military aircraft present situation
Air Force's newest wing activates