+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: 10K hours on a 29 year old F-16 (/showthread.php?tid=229679)
10K hours on a 29 year old F-16 - freeradical - 06-21-2019
That's a ton of hours. IIRC, the Air Force's original requirement was that the air frame should be good for 4K hours. General Dynamics delivered an air frame guaranteed for 8K hours. The latest iteration is rated for 12K hours. That's a lot for an aircraft that routinely pulls 9 Gs.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1880823/misawa-block-50-f-16-hits-10k-hours-an-af-first/
Re: 10K hours on a 29 year old F-16 - mattkime - 06-21-2019
10k * 9 Gs = 90kgs
And on another note... - RAMd®d - 06-21-2019
I've been watching some old episodes of the History Channel's Air Warriors.
It's covered several military planes from pre-WWII to present day.
Among them were the P-38 Lightning, Spitfire, F6F Hellcat (supposedly was going to be called the Tomcat, but that was deemed too racy for the military REMFs), AC-130, F-4 Phantom, Harrier, and my one of my all time favorites – the A-10.
Geeze, I love that plane, er — that gun with a plane wrapped around it.
There were other interesting planes in other episodes, but the above were some of my favorites (oh, and the EA6-B!).
Of particular interest was an A-10 driver named Kim Campbell. She and her flight leader were providing CAS and after a successful mission were RTB when her A-10 took a huge impact. She lost all hydraulics and had to fly by cable. She had the option of punching out but chose to fly it in.
She is one of only two A-10 gunfighters to ever land one manually and the only one to survive.
Quite a story.
I was really impressed at the fact the Air Force didn't want the A-10 in the first place and tried three or four times to get rid of it, prematurely, as it turned out.
I wonder if there is/are any A-10s privately owned. One would have to lose the Avenger, but a mock-up would be a must!
Sorry about the hijack... - RAMd®d - 06-21-2019
Maybe I should have put this in the Thunderbolt thread above.
Re: 10K hours on a 29 year old F-16 - Speedy - 06-21-2019
Looks like it was only a flesh wound. A little duck tape and it’ll be ready for its next mission.
Re: 10K hours on a 29 year old F-16 - DP - 06-21-2019
Re: 10K hours on a 29 year old F-16 - MrNoBody - 06-21-2019
The old "Flying Brick" F-4 Phantom II is still in use by several countries including Iran. It entered US service 12/30/1960!
I hope the Warthog stays in service even longer!
Re: 10K hours on a 29 year old F-16 - Will Collier - 06-21-2019
A Block 50 Viper with 10,000 hours?!?
Gah, I'm old. I was around when those were brand-new.
Re: 10K hours on a 29 year old F-16 - MrNoBody - 06-21-2019
Speedy wrote:
Looks like it was only a flesh wound. A little duck tape and it’ll be ready for its next mission.
That's what she said :biggrin:
Re: 10K hours on a 29 year old F-16 - freeradical - 06-21-2019
MrNoBody wrote:
The old "Flying Brick" F-4 Phantom II is still in use by several countries including Iran. It entered US service 12/30/1960!
I hope the Warthog stays in service even longer!
I disagree. It's time to retire the A-10. The money we spend operating and maintaining this aircraft with its extremely expensive supply chain could be better spent on newer planes.
I do understand why congress critters won't let it die though. It is/was quite a "bang for the buck" military aircraft.
Nostalgia.
However, the A-10 is not flying mission profiles that make use of it's 30 mm cannon which was essentially designed as a counter measure to the reactive armor on Soviet tanks.
Instead, it's flying medium range stand off missions and employing weapons such as the Hellfire missile.
This is something that the F-35 could do, and do it much more safely with stealth if needed.
The AF leadership is correct IMHO. Get rid of the A-10.