Talk:F-16 Fighting Falcon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Contents 1 Polish F-16U ??? 2 Wild Weasel? 3 Fixed a few things 4 Fighter Mafia 5 Bubble Canopy 6 Poland order 7 Armament 8 Nickname 9 Climb performance? 10 Reference to Lightning 11 F-16 without a Drop Tank 12 A-16 Close Air Support varient 13 Let's Feature The Viper 14 Why Does Searching "Zionist Devil Bird" Lead to this Page? 15 Viper ref 16 NPOV? 17 AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo 18 Chilean ex-RNAF 19 Citation needed? 20 EE Lightning designed for 9 g? 21 QinetiQ's Mirach system is targeted by US F-16 Fighters 22 Poland asks US manufacturer to explain problems with new F-16s 23 Suefa/Sufa 24 CG Variant shot down? 25 Requested merger 25.1 Survey 25.2 Discussion 26 F-16 Range 27 More users 28 USAF Fighters and the F-16 29 Flags? 30 List of nations operating F-16s 31 Advertisements & questions 32 Combat service 33 Why two lines about Desert Storm? 34 ... Operation Opera 1981 35 Xflight.de link removal. 36 Popular Culture

Polish F-16U ???

Can someone cite a source for this use of the designation “F-16U”? I am unaware of the Block 50/52+ ever being called the “F-16U” – for Poland or any other customer. I have only heard it used during the 1990s for the UAE, before the F-16E/F Block 60 designation was assigned. Askari Mark | Talk 03:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be confused with the F-16 MLU (Mid Life update) Check out this site [[1]] No such Des. exists "f-16 U" ANigg 06:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wild Weasel?

Under the versions section, the Wild Weasel is listed as a separate version, which is not the case. Wild Weasel is a nickname, pure and simple, that the F-16 inherited when it took over these duties. An F-16 Block 50/52 fitted with the HARM targetting system and HARMs is generally referred to as a wild weasel, although the HTS and HARMs can be fitted to -any- Block 50/52 F-16.

Also, I think it is misleading that the 50D/52D are listed under Wild Weasel, as the D models are trainers, and are not used in any sort of combat situation under normal circumstances.

Bottom line, what I suggest is as follows:

• Remove 'Wild Weasel' from the 'Versions' section, as the Wild Weasel is not a version of F-16, it is a nickname for the particular role played with the particular configuration outlined above.

--kunwon1 10 Mar 2006

• Wild Weasel has been removed. Kunwon1 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting fact that might be added to the discussion on Wild Weasel. The 35th FW in Misawa AB Japan adopted the heritage "WW" tail flash replacing "MJ" in the late 90's. This was due, obstensibly, to pressure from some Capt's and Maj's in the wing who were huge proponents of bringing the Wild Weasel concept back to the Viper from the Rhino/Thud heritage. The resistance initially was corporate from those who wanted to distance the single seat single engine fighter from those underperforming 2 person aircraft. Luckily for us, "Calvin" and his merry men prevailed in the quest and WW was re-instated in the Viper force. Interesting side note, the same person who was the proponent for the WW tail flash also was one of the main architects of the initial 3 Air Tasking Orders of OIF while working as the Master Air Attack Plan chief in an undisclosed location in the desert. Of course, this message will self destruct in 5 seconds...--CUJO

the regestered name of the F-16 is "Fighting Falcon"...to the best of my knowledge, if anyone thinks otherwise, just click my name and post something, i'll get it. cheers Zeetoboy 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the F-16 never participated in the wild weasel operations, this fighter cane after the vietnam war. Cheers Zeetoboy 03:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed a few things

Removed 'All aircraft feature helmet-mounted-cueing allowing off-boresight air-to-air missile firing.' from Block 50/52, as this is a false statement, not all 50s/52s have HMCS, in fact until recently, most did -not- have it.

Changed reference to DFLCC to reference both the FLCC and the DFLCC under the negative static stability section

--kunwon1 10 Mar 2006

Fighter Mafia

The Figher Mafia involvement in the F-15 and F-16 is rather more complex than what is said in the article, from what I could find out on a web search on the term. Basically, the USAF was under the control of what had become known as the "Bomber Mafia" during the fifties and sixties, whose idea of a "fighter" was a missile-armed interceptor with which to shoot down bombers. In fact, even after Vietnam this idea remained mostly unchanged, and the next fighter in the pipeline was more of the same, only bigger and better. The "Fighter Mafia" proposed a different idea, which placed agility over speed, and got their wish in the F-15, which was essentially both an interceptor *and* a fighter. Some of them didn't like the compromise though, which is what lead to the LWF program, and eventually the F-16. --SebastianP 02:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bubble Canopy

Does a bubble canopy really count and an innovation? The concept has been around since the 1940s... Gabe 16:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, its predecessors (F-4, Century series) did not and as far as I know no prior jet aircraft had bubble canopies. A quick scan of WWII photos shows only late-model P-51 Mustangs with bubble canopies, and even they had the front bows separating the weaker rear windows from the front, which was strengthened against bird strikes. A proper wording may be "one-piece bubble canopy", though it certainly did bring back the bubble canopy.

The F-86 had a bubble canopy. Bubble canopy denotes 360degree viz. The P-47 had a bubble canopy. The F-80 had a bubble canopy. One-piece, as noted above, was the innovation.--Buckboard 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the one-piece canopy requires the whole unit be strong enough to withstand bird strikes, not just the part forward of the front bow. As a result, pilots can no longer eject through the canopy and must wait for it to be discarded first, legthening the eject process. (spewing random aviation trivia... perhaps that should find its way in there)

--Mmx1 02:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Further addendum, the F8F Bearcat was the first Navy fighter to feature a bubble canopy.

--Mmx1 00:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"This distinguishes the F-16 from its predecessors, many of which were not designed for all-weather operation (F-104) or were extremely expensive / made for aircraft carrier operations (F-14)."

Context:

From the very beginning, the F-16 was intended to be a cost-effective "workhorse," that could perform various kinds of missions and maintain around-the-clock readiness. It is much simpler and lighter than its predecessors, but uses advanced aerodynamics and avionics (including the first use of fly-by-wire, earning it the nickname of "the electric jet") to maintain good performance. This distinguishes the F-16 from its predecessors, many of which were not designed for all-weather operation (F-104) or were extremely expensive / made for aircraft carrier operations (F-14). It was also the first US fighter aircraft to match the English Electric Lightning's capability of pulling 9g turns during flight.

It is ambiguous what "this" is, nor how it relates to the rest of the sentence.

Have removed the sentence and moved the line abt the Lightning to the intro.

Also, the F-16 was originally intended as a lightweight daytime air-to-air dogfighter only. See the Block 10/ADF variants. Only later did the Air Force realize it needed a cheap tactical "bomb truck" since the A-7 was retired and the F-15's motto was "not a pound for air to ground".

--Mmx1 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Aerodynamically unstable by design? What exactly makes the aircraft unstable by design? Scale models of the F-16 have no problem at all flying without computer-assisted corrections.

The F-16 is unstable because her center of gravity is behind her center of lift. I guess the scale models somehow make sure their center of gravity is where it is supposed to be in conventional aircraft - in front of their center of lift --Echoray 18:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The YF-16 was the world's first aircraft to be slightly aerodynamically unstable by design. Really? They noticed that stabilty detracts from manouverabilty at least as early as world war one. The Sopwith Camel is an example of an intentionally slightly unstable aircraft from that period. --LiamE 13:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

In the discussion of designing an aircraft, most are designed to be neutrally stable. The aircraft is always slightly fighting all attempts to change course by aerodynamic design. This reduces manueverability a little bit because it is also resisting the pilot's attempts to turn the beast. The F-16 has no such resistance to course changes, and would be most unforgiving if the computer did not constantly keep the pointy end forward.JaderVason 18:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that WWI aircraft had this lovely tendency to try to kill the pilot. Due to the lack of a computer to keep this in check, the pilots had to do so themselves. Some WWI planes were even more notorious than others. Kim Bruning 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all relative. The Camel was designed to be stable enough for a skilled pilot to keep it in the air (just!), but if you were an unskilled pilot, you'd be flying underground pretty soon. It was possible to fly it using reflexes, however, and many pilots went on to do so. The instability of the aircraft was a great advantage.

This is all mostly true. The aircraft actually would, under full power, tend to stay stable. The center of gravity was just forward of the lower wing and right at the center of lift of the upper, and there was a slight dihedral to the lower wing that allowed the plane to "settle" into level flight. However, compared to similar successful designs like the Spad, the wings were slightly shorter, with larger control surfaces. It also had a massive rotary engine, which was the secret of its success. The rotary engine gave the plane a very large rotating mass in the counterclockwise direction, and due to Newton's third law this translated into a tendency to roll right. The Camel could slice to the right faster and tighter than any other plane of its day, including the Fokker Dr.I triplane (which had a higher moment of inertia due to the big wing stack). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liko81 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For many years, however, there was a limit to how much instability you could build into an aircraft, because ultimately it had to be flown by a human pilot. Into this mix comes the F-16 with total computer control. Suddenly, they no longer have to make it stable at all. I have heard it said that if you were to try to fly the Viper without the computer, it would require you to have abilities equivalent to:

• Sitting on the bonnet of a ferrari at 250Km/h, pushing a bicycle backwards, and
• Balancing a church on its steeple.

In other words, the instability is much greater than previous fighters, and since the computer's doing the work, it can be as bad as the designer likes.Johno 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the word "current" to the "largest and possibly most important fighter program" part. More F-4 Phantom IIs were produced than F-16s; the major difference is that we're still producing the F-16 today. --The Centipede 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Poland order

Just a minor error I spotted. I noticed Poland is listed as having ordered 45 F-16's. They have infact ordered 46 Block 52 F-16 C/D's (the new type with the conforming fuel tanks etc), not 45.

Be bold and fix the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually its 48 fellas [[2]] ANigg 06:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Armament

I was hoping to find some information about what weapons are loaded on the various weapon stations on the F-16, it would also be nice to find information about Alternate Mission Equipment such as fuel tanks and others...

There's such an enormous variety of armaments which "can" be affixed to modern aircraft, especially one as versatile as this, that it would be rather fruitless and uninteresting to list them all. The site F-16.net (external link in the article) has much more esoteric information on such details.

That and the variety of users and versions would make such an entry extremely long and esoteric.

--Mmx1 19:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Vel einradhin iet ai shur'tugal, there are generally two AIM-9 sidewinders on each wing. most people believe that the rest of the weapons below the fuselage are bombs. true.....to an extent. the F-16 can hold a numerous amount of bombs, yes, but there are usually multiple AIM-120 AMRAAM air to air missiles and one fuel tank on the center pylon of the fuselage. during the desert storm. many F-16s doubled as fighter bombers, the combat mechanics replacing the AMRAAMs with as many bombs as the aircraft could hold, almost exceeding it's max takeoff weight. this fed the "only 2 missiles" steriotype, which is 93% not true, hope i was of assistance Zeetoboy 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the AIM-9, modern variants have been upgraded to carry the AIM-120 on the wingtip rails as well. Generally this configuration is used on strike elements in packages that include escorts so they have maximum stand-off capability against aircraft and thus less chance of being caught in a furball and having to drop stores. Generally-speaking, the hardpoints can be loaded as follows:

• Wingtip (1/9): AAM hardpoint. Handles AIM-9 or AIM-120, any variant
• Outside under-wing (2/8): AAM hardpoint. AIM-9, AIM-120 or AIM-7.
• Middle Under-Wing (3/7): All-purpose hardpoint. Can handle any store in the F-16's catalog except for droptanks. This includes all AAMs as above or up to 2000 lbs AG payload (iron bombs, GBUs, CBUs, or AGMs including the Maverick and HARM).
• Inside under-wing: Bomb/tank hardpoint. No missiles (insufficient clearance between the rail and fuselage), but it can handle any single bomb up to 2000lbs and some duplet and triplet carriers.
• Underbelly: module hardpoint. Can be mounted with an ECM pod, but can also carry a recon camera or droptank.

I can't find it on the internet right now, but the armament section is wron gon the number of CBU's the f-16 can carry. It is routinely loaded with 4, 2 on station 3 and 2 on station 7 with a TER-9/A

Also the configuration used by the 14FS in Misawa, Japan during OSW and OIF was 3 AIM-120's 1 AIM-9 and 2 AGM-88's. Also known as the 501 scl.

I can't put the info up about the 14th FS because it is original research (I was in the 14th from Jan 2002 to Jan 2004) 66.142.153.71 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickname

I'm sure I have read in Tom Clancy's Fighter Wing that this bird was nicknamed 'Viper' after the fighters from Battlestar Galactica, or at least the pilots remember it for the show, not the project. Any comments? User:CronoDroid 19 NOV 2005

We don't put nicknames of fighter jets, it because too long of a list, and really not that useful. --Steven 00:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, "Viper" is the nickname prefered by the plane's pilots (IIRC, most other AF pilots call the F-16s "Lawn Darts"). Is there any allowance for putting in single prefered nicknames (rather than the long list of alternative ones) for planes in the articles where widly prefered nicknames exist?--Raguleader 15:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at various other articles, it seems to me that "we" refers mainly to the editors of the F-16 article. Is there an actual Wiki standard regarding nicknames in articles?--Raguleader 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

During the official welcome ceremony on 9 November it was unveiled that F-16s in Polish service would be named Jastrzab (Hawk).

Climb performance?

The article says:

• Service ceiling: 55,000+ ft (15,240 m)
• Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min

Who would ever want to fly anything that takes over a minute to reach its service ceiling :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• But it fits to the objective of the plane. Now we have F-22 to climb faster from shorter runways. F-16 designed to destroy air defence of its enemy so first of all, it should work good on its own sevice ceiling effectively. With respect, Deliogul 18:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

related to performance, I'd like to know what this means Thrust/weight: F100 0.898; F110 1.095? The thrust-to-weight ratio article in no way explains this data, and measures it in kN. --Mrg3105 10:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As the article states, thrust-to-weight ratio is dimensionless and can thus be measured in any measure of force that you want, since the units of force for thrust and weight cancel eachother out. The F100 and F110 are merely the available engine types for the F-16, incase youere wondering about those. - Dammit 11:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, thank you...I think I would prefer something standard like kNs to be applied to all aircraft powerplants.--Mrg3105 01:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Thrust IS listed in both Imperial and Metric units. If you missed it, you need to look again. Make up your own units for thrust to weight, doesn't matter... -Fnlayson 03:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Lightning

The article says, "...to match the English Electric Lightning's ability to execute 9 g turns." Need to cite a source for this, or simply say "the F-16 was the first US fighter to execute 9 g turns."

No other operational aircraft of the 60s was able to manage more than 7 g or so. The Lightning has higher wing loading even than the notoriously unmaneuverable Phantom, although the Lightning is far more agile due to lighter weight and lower moments on all axes. It would be unlikely to be able to reach 7 g except possibly at high supersonic speeds.

In addition, during the last ten years of its (extended) service life, Lightning pilots were restricted to 4 g because of airframe fatigue issues.

Randall randallcameron@kpmg.com.ye

F-16 without a Drop Tank

From all the pictures provided in the article, its seems like drop tanks come in default with F-16s. Is there any pictures that of F-16's not carrying a pair of these? --Steven 22:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Steven, I have plenty of pics-- but the common configuration for any combat service includes 2x370 gal wing tanks. In reality they have rarely been dropped, even in combat -- Bryan "CUJO" (Cujof16@hotmail.com) 1850hrs, F16A/B/C/D/F

The reason for this is the F-16's operating range without drop tanks is basically only good enough for a couple of laps of the airfield.

This is incorrect; the F-16 carries about 7,000 pounds of internal fuel, placed wherever space can be found including behind the cockpit, in the strakes and some in the wings. The two 370-gallon tanks between them add about 5,000 pounds (data from GlobalSecurity F-16 Specs). At cruise altitude and velocity, the aircraft can remain airborne for between 1-1.5 hours on internal fuel, subtracting what's required for AB takeoff. The droptanks are used for long-range or long-loiter missions like CAS, deep strike and CAP, just like they have been since their invention. They are rarely dropped because when empty they're just an aluminum shell, well within the F-16's bringback capacity, and they only marginally impact performance in that state. Now, the aircraft at full AB at ground level burns about 50,000 pounds an hour, so takeoff can use up to 1,000 pounds of fuel just to get the plane in the air, and a turning fight will very quickly use up gas, but at 85% thrust, 20,000 feet, the aircraft can burn as little as 3500 pounds per hour to cruise at about 300 knots.Liko81 (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The design of the F-16 took into account that aircraft always seem to end up carrying drop tanks, so from the outset it was designed to get to the patrol area on external fuel, then fight and return on internal fuel. I personally see this as being a little optimistic, given the Viper's tiny internal fuel tanks, but hey, what do I know. :) Johno 14:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Y'all are wrong, but I won't go into specifics. Look into F-16 operations in the first Gulf War. Also look into Air-to-Air point defense missions. --Colputt 00:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A-16 Close Air Support varient

At www.f-16.net, it metions the A-16 Block 60, or F/A-16, close air support varient of the "Fighting Falcon". It was chosen over the supersonic A-7 Corsair II, (YA-7F), and was supposed to replace the A-10. The A-16 had a 30mm gun pod on the fuselage, and a few other air-to-ground weapons. After it was decided to have the USAF keep the A-10 "Thunderbolt II" aka "Warthog", instead of giving them to the US Army and US Marine Corps, (and because of the F-16 was not very good at providing CAS in "Desert Storm", [the fuselage-mounted 30mm gun pod was tried once and proved worthless], and the A-10 performed above and beyond expectation in the war), the A-16 was cancelled.204.80.61.10 20:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Let's Feature The Viper

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-16 Fighting Falcon/archive1

It appears the most common complaints were the lack of inline citations. I've been adding some of them myself - let's propel this article into featured status! Joffeloff 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 8 or 9 of them now, so well done there. Any problems anyone sees with the article mention here, then I or others will attend to them. Once that is done I would love to see it return to FAC, given it was I who origionally nominated it in the first place... User:Tom walker 08:54 GMT, 17 July 2006

I agree, but it needs another peer review.--Buckboard 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Does Searching "Zionist Devil Bird" Lead to this Page?

Infinitys 7th 01:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

REPLY: Potentially from that arcane, and inappropriate, reference you may have from those on the "receiving end" of the Israeli F-16s in the middle east.

Viper ref

"the General Dynamics codename for the project during its early development.^[1]"

I removed the above and challenge it (but saved it here for the benefit of debate). First of all, the source is anecdotal, without credentials. Letters to AF link are no different than postings on this page--and without credentialed sources, that constitutes "original research and analysis". Secondly, that "source" is ever-changing. I scrolled through four pages before stopping--it's the job of the person posting the source to make it accessible, not me to go searching for it. If it is to be re-used, at minimum it needs to cite the date of the letter and the identity of the writer. If General Dynamics ever published anything claiming a "Project Viper" and that this is the source of the nickname (which I seriously doubt, since I've been personally aware of the moniker since 1979 and never heard this claim), then that substantiates the claim. Otherwise it's of dubious veracity.--Buckboard 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, someone told me that one of Tom Clancy's nonfiction books mentioned that the nickname for the F-16 came from the Colonial Vipers of BattleStar Galactica. I don't have the book, so I can't check personally, but would a nonfiction Tom Clancy book be a valid source if someone has it?--Raguleader 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found a source for the Viper nickname, a quote on www.f-16.net from a Lieutenant Colonel Pat "Gums" McAdoo, one of the first pilots to fly the production F-16s at Hill AFB in this article about halfway to two-thirds of the way down--Raguleader 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

This isn't just a fun project for the guys. It's supposed to be an objective encyclopedia article. As far as POV articles go, there are worse than this piece for sure; but this article definitely has a pro-imperialist bent to it, as far as the political baggage goes here, and military matters are always political.

It looks like an effort was made in the direction of NPOV -- but I think a U.S.-centric worldview makes it almost impossible from the get-go for a pro-military U.S. writer to actually be objective, no matter how hard he tries (and it's certainly all-male here).

So, considering the nature of this material, I would guess it'd be kinda hard to accomplish a NPOV. But try someone must.

Per Ardua ad Astra, right?

Pazouzou 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pro-imperialistic? It's an aircraft, not a political doctrine. Take your politics elsewhere. --Mmx1 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Any particular sections that are especially non-neutral POV? -Fnlayson 03:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo

Shouldn't the AIDC Ching-kuo be put here as a variant of the F-16? After all, General Dynamics had given AIDC help to make the aircraft, and it just looks a lot like a heavily modified F-16. -User:Nicholas.tan23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The F-CK-1 is not a variant of the F-16. It's a case of convergent evolution. The Mitsubishi F-2 is, and the Koreans' A-/T-50 Golden Eagle could be if you stretched the definition, but not the Ching-kuo. - Aerobird 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chilean ex-RNAF

Chile receives surplus F-16s By Anno Gravemaker

The Chilean air force has received the first six of 18 ex-Royal Netherlands Air Force Lockheed Martin F-16AM/BMs during a ceremony at its Cerro Moreno airbase.

...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/09/12/208936/Chile+receives+surplus+F-16s.html 81.86.144.210 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed?

Where the article discusses the "predicted rash" of FBW accidents that never materialised, someone has suggested "citation needed." I remember this time - it was pretty common knowledge in a world which had never seen the explosion of FBW technology, and "everyone knew" that it was dangerous. Is it necessary for a writer to cite sources for something like this? It would be like citing sources for "most aircraft have wings" . . . . :)

I've seen numerous videos of F-16's crashing due to FBW issues so I really don't think citation is needed ... its just common knowledge.

EE Lightning designed for 9 g?

The article claims that the Lightening is the only other plane capable of performing 9 g turns. This claim seems highly suspect. The Lightning article does not mention this at all. Given that I've heard of P-51s pulling 12 g and living to tell the tale, and that many aerobatic planes are stressed to 20 g, nothing about this claim seems credible anyway. Maury 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did you hear about P-51s doing 12g turns? Need a cite for that. I'm also curious about the overal performance of specialized aerobatics planes compared to combat jets which presumably must be designed to be faster and more rugged, given their combat mission.--Raguleader 01:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

20g in what aircraft? The Pitts was designed for 9-10g if I remember correctly. Sean Tucker's custom Pitts S-2S is strengthed to between 11-12g if I remember the article correctly also. Maybe some of the monoplanes, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. PPGMD 02:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Su-26 is capable of 12g's and that is one of its selling points (being the most maneouvreable aerobatics plane in the world) http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/civil/su-26/history/ I even provided a source for you. That said ... many aircraft can do much higher G's but it often kills the pilot or airframe. For example Su-27 pilots attempted Cobra's at higher and higher speeds after they learnt how to do them. At least 2 died from doing it over Mach 1 and possibly generating as much as 20g. Both times the aircraft was intact when it hit the ground with a non-responsive pilot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.231.41 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Raguleader: "Where did you hear about P-51's doing 12G turns?"

All over the place, although I should point out I did not say "turns", I simply said 12g. In the particular case I am thinking of it was during a pullout from a strafing run.

You may be confusing design load with the actual physical limit the aircraft is capable of. Most fighters are built to a 7.33 design load, meaning that pulling anything at or below that limit is guaranteed to not damage the airframe. However there is a 50% design safety factor above that before damage occurs. In that range the aircraft may suffer damage. Above that 50% overhead is the "plastic range", in which the aircraft will likely suffer permanent bending and cannot be repaired. That doesn't mean it isn't flyable in the meantime however, and there are countless cases of precisely this happening.

Although it may be surprising that aerobatic aircraft can pull more g than a fighter, it's not if you think about how that g is generated... by the wings providing a force g x the weight of the aircraft. Modern fighters are very heavy aircraft, and their wings are relatively small in order to improve high-speed performance. An aerobatic aircraft is built to be as light as possible, modern ones typically using more advanced materials than most fighters in order to get there. Because they are so much lighter the total force they have to create is much smaller.

PPGMD: "20g in what aircraft?"

Unlimited class versions are typically rated to +/- 12 g. That means it's plastic threshold is ~17 g, and will not catastrophically fail until something above that. You're right though, 20 was too high.

Ok, now what does any of this have to do with actual question at hand? I ask again: does anyone have any reference to suggest that the Lightning is stressed for anything other than standard 7.33 or 5.33 loads?

Maury 15:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

F7U Cutlass "was popular, being unbreakable in 16 g manoeuvers" [Bill Gunston, "The Encyclopedia of the World's Combat Aircraft", Chartwell Books Inc., 1976, ISBN 0890090548, page 217.] --Colputt 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

QinetiQ's Mirach system is targeted by US F-16 Fighters

ANY USEFUL FODDER IN THIS? The United States Air Forces Europe (USAFE) 555th 'Triple Nickel' F-16 Fighter Squadron has successfully completed its first Air to Air missile firing against QinetiQ’s Mirach Aerial Target. In the first week of deployment during Exercise 'Deployed Titan 06' at RAF Fairford, a total of eight AIM 9M Sidewinder missiles were fired against a Mirach 100-5 aerial target drone The USAFE Squadron also carried out laser guided bomb drops against surface targets at Aberporth MOD Range, which is operated by QinetiQ.

Skip MacQueen, 16AF Weapons and Ranges, USAF said: "The purpose of our deployment was to provide the centre piece fast jet element to the RAF’s largest annual exercise. We engaged in simulated combined air combat operations and QinetiQ provided comprehensive ranges services, which allowed us to conduct the first live AIM-9 Sidewinder missile launches against drone towed targets within the European Theatre. This was a significant step up in tactical realism for USAFE missile training and provided the first opportunity for a number of the unit’s pilots to employ one of their primary air-to-air weapons."

QinetiQ's new aerial target system, Mirach, is operated from the MOD range at Aberporth but can also be deployed to the Scottish range sites. The company’s sophisticated mobile instrumentation assists in exercise planning and monitors and tracks the munitions fired by the US aircrew.

USAFE is responsible for combat weapons training of US aircrew assigned to its units based in Europe. The training focuses on precision guided munitions and air to air and air to ground missiles and its contract with QinetiQ allows a large portion of the training to be completed within Europe.

QinetiQ's range services and aerial target systems provide USAFE aircrews with a significant level of tactical training not available on any other European Range. Its Air Range danger areas at Aberporth in Wales and the Hebrides and West Freugh in Scotland provide designated large practice areas for air to air missile engagements as well as defensive countermeasures and combat search and rescue missions.

Increased scope of USAFE training activity on the UK MOD ranges last year led QinetiQ to purchase a number of surface targets along with an instrumented barge for data capture.

http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2006/4th_quarter/qinetiq_s_mirach_system.html 81.86.144.210 10:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Poland asks US manufacturer to explain problems with new F-16s

ANY USEFUL FODDER IN THIS?

Poland has asked Lockheed Martin of the United States to give details of the technical problems that forced brand new F-16 fighter jets to turn around when they were en route for delivery in Poland, a defense official said.

...

http://www.terra.net.lb/wp/Articles/DesktopArticle.aspx?ArticleID=314026&ChannelId=6 81.86.144.210 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Suefa/Sufa

I am fairly certain that the Israeli version סופה should be transliterated as 'Sufa' or possibly 'Soofa'. It certainly shouldn't be 'Suefa'. However, I did not change it myself as I'm not absolutely sure this isn't an incorrect transliteration by the IAF. 89.0.157.123 23:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Roy

"Sufa" seems to currently be the most common transliteration. "Suefa" appeared early on, principally in British sources like Jane's, but Sufa has generally overtaken it. I cannot recall ever having seen "Soofa" before. Askari Mark | Talk 01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, "Sufa" is the most common transliteration for the F-16I, and as a sidenote; the total program cost for the 102 aircraft ordered by the IASF is around $4.5 billion, which puts the unit cost at roughly $45 million per aircraft and not ~70 million as quoted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gg172 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• With a reference for the order/price, it can be fixed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yip :-) sorry about that... i forgot to give a reference for the order/price. You will find it on the following pages: www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/F-16I, or you can try: www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/f-16i, or alternatively try: www.f-16.net/news_article1002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gg172 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

CG Variant shot down?

cnn and yahoo reporting one went downtoday in iraq, no idea why,could be enemy fire. was on close air support mission.

pilots fate undetermined...

if im not mistaken, isnt this the same variant that went down in the bosnia / serbia battles where that pilot was left behind enemy lines for a few days?

If one reads outside of the propaganda distribution circles, its already been docuemnted that it was hit by enemy fire crashed and burned and the pilot's body is found near the wreckage. Watch the video on ogrish you can make out a corpse in the background.

• It was an F-16CG from the 524th Ftr. Sqn. being flown by Maj. Troy L. Gilbert of the 309th Ftr. Sqn. Further information can be found at F-16.net [3] and grainy footage of the crash site can be viewed at Liveleak [4]. It appears that Maj. Gilbert ejected, but did not survive; the cause of death won't be known until the body has been recovered. The aircraft was in combat, reportedly dropping cluster bombs from low altitude against insurgents, when two Strelas were fired at it. Askari Mark | Talk 19:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested merger

KF-16 → F-16 Fighting Falcon

• Minimal content on KF-16 page. Main text appears to be verbatim copy of KF-16 text in F-16 article. Not enough variant differences to warrant a separate page for a single variant. - BillCJ 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support - BillCJ 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Aerobird 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - --Joffeloff 03:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - --Helioglyph 12:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The South Korean KF-16 are licensed by Lockheed Martin and differ only from a variation with regards to the plane's manufacturer (the KF-16 being partialy manufactured by Korean Aerospace Industries) and as stated by the current article regarding the KF-16 the plane is essentially a F-16C/D Block 52. The more advanced version, with its 2,500 changed parts, can be considered another variant like the F-16ADF and as such the belongs in Section 4.4 (Versions: Other variants) of the F-16 Fighting Falcon article.

• Support - Askari Mark (Talk) 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

No contest. Page will be merged. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

F-16 Range

Can someone explain to me why all the Soviet aircraft on Wikipedia have their mission range with internal fuel listed and all US aircraft have their ferry radius with extra fuel tanks attached listed, in many cases incorrectly? This article for example translates 3,100miles to be 3,100km when in fact 3,100miles is closer to 5,200km and is an entirely unrealistic range for an F-16. Range in common parlance is the distance a combat aircraft can fly to a mission, have enough fuel to take part in the mission and then return. Ferry range is specified as such because naturally it is double the combat range of an aircraft using internal fuel. The bonus provided by external tanks is included as an extra in brackets so that you do not get confused thinking that you have your maximum range available to you with enough room to carry your maximum ordinance. While I don't have the time to research this I was under the distinct impression that the F-16's ferry range with 3 external tanks is around 3,500km and its mission radius is less then 1,200km. But someone needs to research that further before amendments to the article are made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.231.41 (talk • contribs)

"By range is meant the ability of the aircraft to reach the combat zone and to cover it. Range is determined by the quantity of the fuel carried and the operational profile flown. Half of the value of the combat range is called the radius of action."^[2]

F-16A range on internal fuel in interception mission, about 1,300 miles (2,100 km); attack radius at low level with maximum weapon load, 120 miles (193 km), attack radius with six MK-82 bombs, 339 miles (546 km)^[3]

F-16A tactical radius, (interdiction mission hi-lo-hi on internal fuel with six MK-82 bombs), 340 miles; ferry range, 2,300 plus miles^[4]

F-16A tactical radius, (six MK-82, internal fuel, Hi-Lo-Hi) 340 miles (547 km); ferry range 2,415 miles (3,890 km)^[5]

F-16A (basic Block 15) Tactical radius (Hi-Lo-Hi interdiction with 3,000 lb / 1,360 kg of bombs), 360 miles (580 km)^[6]

F-16XL Maximum Range, 2,875+ miles (4,630+ km)^[7]

F-16C (Block 52) ferry range 2,619 miles (4,215 km)^[8]

F-16C (Block 50) radius 923 miles (1,485 km) with two 2,000 lb (907 kg) bombs and two AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range AAMs^[9]

F-16C Combat Radius 575 miles (925 km)^[10]

--Colputt 01:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More users

We seem to have a continuing problem with the "more users" filed in the Aircraft Infobox. Everybody and his brother thinks it needs one more added, usually the Turkish or Portugese Air Force, to the point of often deleting the notes stating to only have 3. I recall a guideline in WP:AIR, though I haven't been able to find it, that recommended leaving the "more users" field blank if there were more than 4 users total. Given the current problem, I'd like to propose leaving the field blank for the time being. All users are listed further on in the article, so I see no need to tempt newbies to add their favorite force. Comments? - BillCJ 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise: instead of listing three at random, or - as I'd arranged it previously - the three largest non-USAF users (Turkey, Israel, Egypt), the 'more users' field could read - in this case - "24 others"? - Aerobird 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It might work, but I may take this up at the template's talk page. Ericg is the project's resident infobox guru, so I may ask him also. I had tried choosing one user from each major continiten, but my European choice (Poland), didn't satisfy anyone either. (: Oh well, such is like on Wikipedia. Anyway, if "24 others" would curb the need to add more, then I'm all for it. - BillCJ 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, with so many users, you either count the three largest users by volume (which could be difficult) or just list the primary and ignore the rest in the infobox. It's a summary, not a list. ericg ✈ 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps only write "25 users" and thats all? Names of users are good for machines like PZL TS-11 Iskra, not for F-16 or P-51 Radomil talk 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi all,

I apologise for reopening an old issue, but I hate to see content disputes get in the way of information. In this case, it just seems most helpful if we list the largest operators, and the top three seem to be significantly greater than the others (Israel, Egypt, Turkey), and [forgive me if there is more which I am missing, but] the disruption was a half-year ago and quite minimal at that. Do let me know what you think. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 09:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to disrupt 6 months of peace? It's worked all this time! Just leave it alone, please. However, if you get a consensus (meaning you don not have one yet) to add the top 3 non-US users, I won't fight fight it. But I don't expect the list to stay at those 3 for very long. If I'm wrong, fine, but experience here tells me I'm not. - BillCJ 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that altering a status quo can sometimes be a bad idea, however correct me if I'm mistaken, but all that I've seen in the way of opposition is some edit warring by one or two IPs/throwaways, and quite a while ago at that. Would I be correct in understanding that you only oppose this in order to maintain stability, but ideally support it? Does anyone else have thoughts on the issue? Tewfik^Talk 09:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the only concern seems to be edit warring like that from the IPs all that time ago, and as no one here is going to edit-war, I'm going to put the top three, which are qualitatively far more than most other users. Tewfik^Talk 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now, but the first time the "more users" are changed, I'm going to take it out again. I hope you're right that it won't be changed, but I sincerely doubt it. You've but two muslim countries (one Arab) together with Israel, which is just asking for trouble. (Arab and Isreali pics are swapped out in the airliner pages all the time - it's crazy!) Also, those 3 users are all in one region; I like to spread the users out across the globe, but most other editors just go with quantity - that's just my preference, and I don't try to enforce that. - BillCJ 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Referencing the quantities each user has in the Operators section would help too. The data listed may not be out of date or something. -Fnlayson 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We should certainly strive to avoid conflict, and engineering the entry to avoid certain topics can be a good approach at times. However I'm not convinced that some IP or other not-serious user should be what we define as "conflict" - perhaps if someone goes through the trouble of discussing on Talk then we should work something else out, but a simple disruption should be treated as just that, no? As far as the other points you raise, they are legitimate, but we should keep in mind that the geographic concentration represented by the users reflects the reality of this systems' usage, almost entirely Middle-Eastern. What do you think? Tewfik^Talk 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read my contributions from even just the last month, you'll see that I spend a fair amount of time reverting "simple disruptions" - I have no problem doing that. This page has experienced far more than just "simple disruptions" on this issue over the past 12 or so months in which I've been watching this, and we tried numerous solutions to the problem. This last solution has been very effective at reducing the conflict. I hope that I'm wrong about it. However, I've found that "simple disruptions" are what we call problems other people deal with; "major disruptions" are the ones that affect us! Therefore, I am not going to revert any more disruptive edits to the "more users" section, but will simply place the diffs on your talk page, asking you to deal with it, when they happen. I make you a solemn promise that I will not use sockpuppets to try to make this appear to be a problem when it isn't. Again, I hope I'm wrong, and that any disruptions that occur are just simple ones. I do understand your last point on geographich usage, and for nations without huge "rivalries" that's usually the best way to go. - BillCJ 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis about the difference between "simple disruptions" and "major disruptions" sounds spot on ;-) Just to be clear though, the reason that I've insisted is that I find that there are so many issues on WP around which valid content disputes arise, that I feel bad when such seemingly straightforward issues as this also become casualties of conflict. Of course I would never dream that you would sock to prove a point, but if you do, I hope that I can carry out my new mission successfully. My Talk page is at your service. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

USAF Fighters and the F-16

FYI: There's an article in Air Force Magazine online about the AF's fighter fleet and mainly deals with extending the life of the F-16s until the F-35 goes into service. Here's the link Making the Best of the Fighter Force Anyway it looks like a good source for current F-16 info for this article. - Fnlayson 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Even better source concerning the F-16 [[5]] ANigg 07:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Flags?

Can we get some Template user flags in on the countries? ANigg 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

List of nations operating F-16s

Is there anywhere that these statistics can be/are sourced from? If so, could it be added to the article for Wikipedia:Attribution purposes? -- saberwyn 09:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know for sure. But probably many sources, like the countries' web pages and other web pages. -Fnlayson 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about from the horse's mouth [6] or, if you want an independent source, [7]? The former, BTW, lists them in order of acquisition (but doesn't count the US Navy since it's only listing countries). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's not bad. Much easier than figuring out countries that use AH-1 Cobra. -Fnlayson 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen Fnlayson ANigg 03:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements & questions

Adevertisement template: parts of this article read as a advertisments. Please rewrite. (hmmm template is not allowed on talk page?) some examples: with innovations including a frameless, bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control while under high g-forces, and reclined seat to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot. It was also the first fighter aircraft to be deliberately built to sustain 9g turns. It is also one of the few jets with a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one, giving the Falcon 'excellent acceleration, THe histotry: Is the F16 replaced or intended to be replaced now? --> it is not the greatest fight in th eworld anymore? Versions: never is spoke about the low sides of the old versions, then why modernisation are applied. And the PR of it all is... he VISTA program is considered successful, but the thrust vector control (TVC) never made it into fighter versions... Ifosmeone with better writing skills wants to improve please feel free. :Leuk he 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

All those claims are factually correct and don't seem like advertising jargon to me. VISTA was considered successful because it worked. It didn't make production due to cost. It is being incorporated into the F-35 instead. F-35s will begin replacing F-16s around 2011, but the US will continue to operate F-16s until at least 2025. I think some of that has been added to article by now, some is still on the way. Highonhendrix (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Currently the History section covers the F-16 development to the mid-1970s. It lack details after that. You can get some of the history by reading through the F-16A tthrough F-16F articles on the F-16.net page. I'll try to answer some your questions. The VISTA program came in the late 1980s. That was probably too late to be implemented. The F-35 Lightning II will start replacing F-16s in a couple years. Hope this helps.. -Fnlayson 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Which sections do you feel read like advertisements? -Fnlayson 22:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Thrust -to- weight ration of greater than 1 means to me the plane can go ballistic i.e. up like a rocket rather than "excellent acceleration" (which also happens though I'd tone down excellent). Ok to reword and link to say ... http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/fwrat.html ? Ttiotsw 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent seems fitting there. But if you want to change that word to tone down a bit, go ahead. -Fnlayson 04:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Combat service

That article about several F-16 combat victories near Yugoslavia is not ok. Because the Yugoslavian MiG's 29 were'nt in state to operate as normal. The question is just: can we accept this F-16/MiG-29 situations as a real victory?

See also the English wikipedia page about the MiG29 under Operational history: [8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.94.66.244 (talk) 13:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Why two lines about Desert Storm?

It's the most important conflict for every 4th generation aircraft and... 2 lines? I've tried to expand this, but someone cacelled all the well documentated events... because: "2 lines is enough" happy you, happy all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt hg (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

... Operation Opera 1981

Ok, great raid. But The complex was not destroyed... severly damaged. It would need far more bombs to Destroy such a group of buildings. Look at this photo:[9]. Not exactly wiped out, uh? If you "destroy" something, no one will be able to use it anymore... Iraqis used Osirak nuclear research complex until 1991...if not after that date. And if it was destroyed, what did the US bomb in 1991 [10]? sand? Thanks. Marco

Xflight.de link removal.

Hi there. Some time ago some external links were removed, including one to www.xflight.de (F-16C Reference Library) that looked interesting since that site had much detail about the F-16 cockpit instrumentation, it even had real-looking photos of many of the F-16's cockpit gauges and switches (at least, they look real). As now, I'm NOT an expert in editing Wikipedia (just added very few things here and there) and I don't know if that link is against Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, but that link looked fairly interesting IMHO. I'm not sure, but I recall that some of the material on the site matches what's written in Falcon 4's flight simulator manual, so it may be authentic (Falcon 4 and his sequel are renowned AFAIK for their realism). Any F-16 cockpit expert 'round here who can confirm this?

Anyway, should xflight.de be kept off the article? And for what reason?

PS: as the warning beside the link said, you're likely to have problems on that site if you switch from German to English and you have Firefox (Win), you'll have to fiddle a little with the menu tree on the left to get things going (i.e.: click once on the flag first, then click a couple of times on some of the menu links and the language should change). IE users seems unaffected. Didn't try other browsers/OSes yet.

Cheers, 151.42.100.49 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)BlackKatMike

• I trimmed back on the links a couple weeks ago. On further review, the reference site is better than another one, so I brought it back and removed the other one. Too bad the language thing is scripted and not separate pages taht can be linked directly. -Fnlayson 03:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks pal, I think that site really deserves a link here. I agree with the scripted language thing, the nastiest effect is with Firefox as said before. I think I'll try to contact the site admin (as soon as I'll have 30 secs of free time... i.e. I don't really know when :-)) to tell him. I recall that maybe there's a way to link the English part directly... or at least there was.151.38.108.89 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)BlackKatMike

Popular Culture

Please read this.

Please do not add the many minor appearances of the aircraft. This section is only for major cultural appearances where the aircraft plays a MAJOR part in the story line, or has an "especially notable" role in what is listed. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. Random cruft, including ALL Ace Combat, Transformers toylines, Battlefield, Video Game appearances, Metal Gear Solid appearances, and ALL anime/fiction lookalike speculation, WILL BE removed.

The F-16 can be seen in movies such as Blue Thunder, Jewel Of The Nile, the Iron Eagle series, X2, and The Sum Of All Fears. It also appears, in a more negative light, in the 1992 TV movie Afterburn.

Due to its widespread adoption, the F-16 has been a popular model for computer flight simulators, appearing in over twenty games. Some of them are: Falcon series (1987-2005), F-16 Fighting Falcon (1984), Jet (1989), Strike Commander (1993), iF-16 (1997), F-16 Multi-role Fighter (1998), F-16 Aggressor (1999), and Thrustmaster "HOTAS Cougar" flight simulator controller (exacting reproduction of those found in the F-16 Block 40/50). The F-16 is also one of two airplanes available in the built-in flight simulator in Google Earth.

Those games count as minor seriously. If nobody wants to see F-22 Raptors appear in Flight Sims means neither this jet. Those games are fiction appearances.(TougHHead 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

I've checked the recent edit history of the F-22 page, and I can't find the sim you're griping about being removed. Can you provide us with the diffs for when it was added and removed,and the article link for the sim? Also, you need to be careful of the tit-for-tat arguments - they won't get you very far with serious editors. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with BillCJ regarding this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting colors and markings on 1 Texas ANG F-16C marking squadron's 90th anniversary. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)