YF-22 vs YF-23

Roscoe · by **Roscoe** » 07 Dec 2005, 06:19

ximeno - I have no idea what your last message is asking. But to clarify, I spent 20 years in the USAF acquisition business as a flight testers and program manager...

As for why the F-16 doesn't shoot the gun...every time it is fired there is significant maintenance required. So, firings are limited to required training or actual combat requirements.

Guysmiley · by **Guysmiley** » 07 Dec 2005, 06:45

Uhhh, what? You're breaking up there a little X. What does "civi jets" have to do with an F-111 (not) going Mach 3? Or an F-16's cannon? I think Roscoe's gravitas speaks for itself reading what he's been kind enough to share with us here. He really IS a former FTE and PPM.

The YF-23 lost, its over and done with. It was a beautiful looking plane, but it is history now. It is painful to see one of them in such sorry shape though.

ximeno · by **ximeno** » 07 Dec 2005, 20:31

Roscoe I'm not talking about maint, I'm talking about just why they cannot shoot their gun, what is the reason? What is it that depo has to do to fix the problem?

Also from the reply you gave, you may know about things on paper or in the office but NOT from a mech pov (we call them paper pushers). I've been in both civi and mil a/c from C-20 from the army to Air Force, Navy etc actually in the field working on it, do you remember scott o'brady? I was there recovering the a/c.

C-17 ship 1 what was the problen that is still there on every fwd major join area on every C-17.

F-111 there was a report in the 80's that a low level F-111 sank a local fishing boat from the rooster tail and shock wave, the electrician had to change the BROKEN mach indicator, the windscreen was hot and melted and the le had no paint. Mach indicator was stuck on mach 3. (I work with the guy)

elp · by **elp** » 07 Dec 2005, 21:06

Scott Obrady??? :lol:

or O'Grady? :lol:

recovered after his mission where his AIM -9 missed that St Valantines Day like massacre where the F-16s stomped those ExYugo Galeb figher jets??? I didn't know his jet was recovered after he punched out of the SAM hit at a later date. It was in pieces if I recall. :lol:

Combat reports indicate the the F-16 gun fires. What events has it not? ( just asking I am curious )

Maybe Gums or someone else will step in and give us a little engineering 101 on what happens to conventional skin when it gets to around Mach 3. :lol:

Maybe...... maybe at high level... for a brief short short period, that is a reach. And as far as low level: No way at Mach 3.0 The F111 is fast down low but the air is just wayyy to dense at sea level for a conventional fighter jet.

ximeno... no offense but in the best kind of flightline humor where everyone takes hard shots against each other... the words and spelling of your last post looks like you were struggling a bit. Are you on your 2nd 6 pack or something?

Guysmiley · by **Guysmiley** » 07 Dec 2005, 21:07

So hard to not feed the troll... must... resist... Aahhh, I just can't.

Ok ximeno, every source I find has the F-111's top speed at sea level as ~910 mph, which is 790 knots. Mach 3 at sea level is 1800-2000 knots (depending on temperature). So where does the extra 1000 knots come from? And who is this "scott o'brady" you speak of? Never heard of him. And what exactly does a C-17 have to do with anything?

ximeno · by **ximeno** » 07 Dec 2005, 23:46

o'brady /grady hell the 16 that got shot down in the serbs but I'm not talking about the plane I'm talking about the pilot coming back from ram germany.

GUN sure they can fire the gun but what other thing is the gun doing.

no, on break being distracted and in a hurry.

C-17= roscoe "thinks" that I don't know what I'm talking about but I do from a mechanic pov not from a paper pusher pov like he is. I have worked on many a/c but it looks like he work mm no, he managed other people. If roscoe can answer just why the gun should not be fired, and not the "maint" answer since HE thinks HE knows it all, this discussion would be over,,,or will it.

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 08 Dec 2005, 00:51

ximeno,

Have you looked at Roscoe's signature?

Roscoe
USAF TPS 92A
Former Viper Flight Test Engineer
Former Viper Production Program Manager

Something tells me that a TPS grad from '92 who was also a Flight Test Engineer might know what he's talking about.

If you disagree with someone, please consider a PM instead of an attack out in the open.

I don't see how your questions have anything to do with the original topic of the thread, namely the YF-22 and YF-23. Have you ever thought of starting a new thread???

VPRGUY · by **VPRGUY** » 08 Dec 2005, 02:30

ximeno wrote:o'brady /grady hell the 16 that got shot down in the serbs but I'm not talking about the plane I'm talking about the pilot coming back from ram germany.

GUN sure they can fire the gun but what other thing is the gun doing.

no, on break being distracted and in a hurry.

C-17= roscoe "thinks" that I don't know what I'm talking about but I do from a mechanic pov not from a paper pusher pov like he is. I have worked on many a/c but it looks like he work mm no, he managed other people. If roscoe can answer just why the gun should not be fired, and not the "maint" answer since HE thinks HE knows it all, this discussion would be over,,,or will it.

Third grade grammer, I love it

Anyhow, Roscoe "thinks" he knows what he is talking about because he probably does. As a test pilot, he needs to know just a little about the mechanics of the airplane. Also as a test pilot, he does a little more than "push paper"- I spent four years in the test wing at Eglin, so I think I've seen a real-live test pilot before.

As for recovering the plane O'Grady was on in Ramstien- you mean you recovered the transport he was on? Here is what that says to me: "Heavy" crew chief= doesn't-know-hardly-a-thing-about-the-gun-on-a-fighter. Unless you happened to be TA, then I'll cut you some slack.

ximeno wrote:GUN sure they can fire the gun but what other thing is the gun doing.

What??? You really make no sense. Roscoe mentioned the maintenance angle for not shooting the gun. I'll be damned, he was right! THey don't shoot the gun regularly because it creates extra maintenance- we have to clean the gun port, inspect the gun, things like that. Plus, there is scheduled maintenance that needs to be done after X number of rounds fired- so they don't shoot too often. Plus, HEI ammo needs a little extra care in handling (at least at bases I've been to), so most places probably don't like to have it loaded unnecessarily. Plus, the stuff just costs money- so why shoot it off all the time? Same reason we don't always shoot off live AGM-65's and Mk-82's.

If you are on break and in a hurry when you do these posts, you need to invest in a home computer so you can clearly think out what you're trying to say before you post. You sound like an intoxicated grade schooler here.

I started this thread to get opinions on the YF-22 and YF-23; not to argue why the gun on and F-16 "won't fire". If you want to debate that one, go to the weapons forum. If you want to debate someone, go to the "off topic". If you want to attack the credentials of one of the more highly qualified people on this forum, do it while you're on the toilet taking a poop.

TenguNoHi · by **TenguNoHi** » 08 Dec 2005, 03:01

VPRGUY,

Please dont encourage any of our colleagues on this forum to post while they are on the toilette taking a crap. I dont want to think about that.

"So I agree the F-16 is an amazing urgghjhhhhhhhh fighting machine and it has uhhhhghghhghghgh a great ability to do mult aawwwwwwwwurrghghhghghghg missions and urhghghhghghghghghg!"

Yeah, I posted earlier that Roscoe was a test pilot and prolly knew what he was talking about but then I decided not to help Ximeno with any evidence that was right in front of him. (That was the edit above) Anyways...

-Aaron

Roscoe · by **Roscoe** » 08 Dec 2005, 03:24

You guys kill me

but I love your style!

Those last two truly had me rolling!

TenguNoHi, sound like you're pulling g's

Sniper69 · by **Sniper69** » 08 Dec 2005, 04:07

Awww Tengu its EVERYWHERE!!!

VPRGUY warned you about this.....and it sounds like your in an F-111 doing mach 3 on the deck talking to Scott O'Grady about the F-16's gun...IMHO...

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 08 Dec 2005, 06:40

Roscoe wrote:F-111 going Mach 3? Not a chance. You're smoking that wacky weed again

There was a guy some years back on r.a.m. that claimed an F touched 2.8 briefly. IIRC he was an F-111 pilot. Don't know if it was BS or not but ISTR him being a fairly reliable poster.

JR007 · by **JR007** » 08 Dec 2005, 08:17

Roscoe,

ximeno - I have no idea what your last message is asking.

Neither does anyone else on this thread… :doh:

ELP,

“Sierra” gets hot and deforms at Mach 3, heck, Tom burned all the insignia off his Zipper doing 2.5 for two minutes!
:beer:

ximeno,
o'brady /grady and what the foxtrot does civi jets have to do with it, unless they are BLACK… :wtf:

AmmoCapt · by **AmmoCapt** » 29 Dec 2005, 19:48

I hope I don't get a sound beating for bring a little bit of life back to this thread.

First, I want to say, that I loved the -23 simply for its looks. I may be in the Air Force, but I am also one of the uninformed masses. I'll go with the old maxim of if the plane looks like it can do the job, it probably can. I was also happy to see someone else thought that the -22 prototypes had monster vertical stabs. How it could be low-observable with those things is way beyond me. But the good news is that the new ones are quite pretty.

X, to answer your question (in short form) about the -16 and not firing the gun, is that it is some rather serious maintenance each time it is fired, and if enough rounds are shot at one time, a complete teardown is required.

And NO, this is not something the depot could issue a TCTO to fix. A new gun would be required for that.

Roscoe · by **Roscoe** » 29 Dec 2005, 20:35

Oh man, now you're gonna get the X-man all fired up again :doh: