| Author |
Message |
|
Boman
|
Posted: Mar 09, 2008 - 11:49 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 08, 2004 - 08:22 PM
Posts: 1106
Status: Offline
|
Just curious;
As there are at least 5 FY84 F-16C retired to AMARC, one should think that the FY83 Charlie's where also there. But besides some acting as GF-16C's at Sheppard, all are still operational (Minus those who has crashed off course )
Anyone who can explain this to me, as logic dictates that FY83 should wind up in AMARC before FY84. Or.......?
(PS! I know that BRAC will make sure that most end up in AMARC within the year, but still.......) |
_________________ Best regards
Niels
http://s587.photobucket.com/albums/ss316/NC-Boman/
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 24, 2013 - 6:31 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Henrik
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2008 - 12:10 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 12, 2005 - 02:32 AM
Posts: 1968
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Roscoe
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2008 - 01:46 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jun 29, 2004 - 09:14 PM
Posts: 1279
Location: Las Vegas
Status: Offline
|
| Yup, age is absed on flying hours more than physical age. PLus, those jets may have been bent or damaged such that repair was no longer cost effective. Could be lots of reasons... |
_________________ Roscoe
<b>"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns"</b> - <i>Dos Gringos</i>
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Boman
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2008 - 05:21 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 08, 2004 - 08:22 PM
Posts: 1106
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Scorpion82
|
Posted: Mar 23, 2008 - 08:52 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Oct 07, 2007 - 07:52 PM
Posts: 992
Status: Offline
|
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the first charlie model flown in 1984? How is it possible that there are FY 83 aircraft? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sulfer732
|
Posted: Mar 23, 2008 - 09:04 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Dec 11, 2005 - 09:01 PM
Posts: 157
Status: Offline
|
| well, i know for a fact that it is possible, simply because i work at an AMU where the first ever prduction "D" model is at (83-1174), and the 4th oldest "C" model is at (83-1121). they are both FY83 tails. the aircraft serial is based on the year the aircraft was ordered... not the year that it flew... so you may be correct on the first flight taking place in 1984. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Scorpion82
|
Posted: Mar 24, 2008 - 03:33 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Oct 07, 2007 - 07:52 PM
Posts: 992
Status: Offline
|
|
sulfer732 wrote:
well, i know for a fact that it is possible, simply because i work at an AMU where the first ever prduction "D" model is at (83-1174), and the 4th oldest "C" model is at (83-1121). they are both FY83 tails. the aircraft serial is based on the year the aircraft was ordered... not the year that it flew... so you may be correct on the first flight taking place in 1984.
That sounds reasonable, thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Boman
|
Posted: Mar 26, 2008 - 12:56 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 08, 2004 - 08:22 PM
Posts: 1106
Status: Offline
|
I have wondered about the same thing in the past, and through reading up, the "normal" time from order to actual flight is about 1 1/2 - 2 years.
FY83 then flew in late 1984, early 1985 and so on  |
_________________ Best regards
Niels
http://s587.photobucket.com/albums/ss316/NC-Boman/
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|