F-16 cs Mig-29 crash record and history

carss · by **carss** » 15 Oct 2014, 21:34

Alright guys, which plane has had more crashes? The F-16 or Mig-29 in all the parts of the world?

old.iraqi.air.force · by **old.iraqi.air.force** » 15 Oct 2014, 23:10

Two lost in the old Iraqi air force, one 1990 accident, and the second one in training dogfight 1994-95 not sure.

dragracingmaniac · by **dragracingmaniac** » 16 Oct 2014, 07:05

F-16...you have to get off of the ground before you can crash.

madrat · by **madrat** » 16 Oct 2014, 07:54

So you want to compare one type that spent most of its service life ticking off flight hours between SLEPs versus another that spent most of its life collecting dust waiting to be traded for spare parts?

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 12 Aug 2015, 20:31

old.iraqi.air.force wrote:Two lost in the old Iraqi air force, one 1990 accident, and the second one in training dogfight 1994-95 not sure.

MiG-29 ?

AreaRule · by **AreaRule** » 12 Aug 2015, 20:53

According to the front page, F-16's are crashing most every week.

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 12 Aug 2015, 21:33

AreaRule wrote:According to the front page, F-16's are crashing most every week.

No suprise .. These USAF F-16s are old - for example the one crashed lately in Germany manufacture date 1991 , plus the extensive training conducted by US pilots which takes these machines to its limits.
No wonder they want to replace them with F-35s

h-bomb · by **h-bomb** » 13 Aug 2015, 01:15

carss wrote:Alright guys, which plane has had more crashes? The F-16 or Mig-29 in all the parts of the world?

With the MIG 29 we really do not know, many users do not publish or even acknowledge losses.

However even with the same safety rate X losses per 100,000 hours, the F-16 would have more. It has outsold the MIG-29 almost 3 to 1.

I would love to see something for the MIG 29 like the "F-16 Fleet Status" on the main page here. The 672 scrapped or written off only account for less than 15% of the total fleet (not bad for 37 years). I suspect the MIG 29 percentages are much higher, but the total numbers could still be lower. If 40% of the MIG-29s ever built were scrapped or written off it would still be few aircraft then the F-16, approx 640 verse 672.

vilters · by **vilters** » 14 Aug 2015, 15:24

First try to find out how many hrs flown by each. What hrs? Training or operations.

F-16's are "combat aircraft". They have seen more action then any other A/C.
Hrs flown versus losses.

What have Mig-29's proven so far???? (In actual combat that is?)

borg · by **borg** » 14 Aug 2015, 20:03

wow, you do see those dick measurements method is completly fail..?

Cause that goes for Gripen, Su-27, EF, Rafale aaaand F-22 as well. And which tells us exactly what? Absolutly nothing.

But don't let that stop you..

Master-of-Disaster · by **Master-of-Disaster** » 14 Aug 2015, 21:10

For a valid comparison you should compare the number of crashes to number of airframes build, flight hours, combat losses vs training accidents, ...
If you could do the math I'm sure it would produce some interesting figures, but there is just no way to find all the data you need.

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 14 Aug 2015, 23:34

The F/A-18 has high crashes also

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 15 Aug 2015, 21:25

AreaRule wrote:According to the front page, F-16's are crashing most every week.

Yeah thats what happens when you have 5,000+ F-16s that fly millions of hours with 20 some odd countries over 40 years.

borg wrote:wow, you do see those dick measurements method is completly fail..?

Cause that goes for Gripen, Su-27, EF, Rafale aaaand F-22 as well. And which tells us exactly what? Absolutly nothing.

But don't let that stop you..

Russian safety records in just about every area from Submarines, to nuclear power, to basic driving road statistics say plenty.

A member of my family worked for the DoD and he told me the story of Russian bunkers exploding so often that the West started giving them bunker plans so they would learn how to build ammo bunkers that didn't explode. Classic.

vilters wrote:What have Mig-29's proven so far???? (In actual combat that is?)

They burn well?

Master-of-Disaster wrote:For a valid comparison you should compare the number of crashes to number of airframes build, flight hours, combat losses vs training accidents, ...
If you could do the math I'm sure it would produce some interesting figures, but there is just no way to find all the data you need.

this

stobiewan · by **stobiewan** » 16 Aug 2015, 01:24

carss wrote:Alright guys, which plane has had more crashes? The F-16 or Mig-29 in all the parts of the world?

Crashes per flight hour or crashes at air shows?

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 18 Aug 2015, 00:11

Another 2 F-16 collided .. On the runway as I heard ..pilots ok