Beyond Bruce's observation, being elsewhere at Mach 2 is fine as long as you decided to be elsewhere *before* the people shooting at you got their first hit. If I must take fire, I'd rather take it in a Warthog than an Eagle any day.

Were you ever a combat pilot, or just an avid reader of Jane's?

In the A-10, the pilot sits in a titanium tub that will stop shots up to 29mm.
There was an IOtD of an A-10, shot to hell, hydraulics gone, and the pilot (woman) brought it home....incredible. :smack:

I'm a private pilot with 400 hours in-command logged; I have never flown in combat. Many years ago I was in an enlisted specialty that was aircrew for a combat aircraft; specifically a land-based naval patrol aircraft.

And your qualifications are?

a curious mind.

That would follow....it's certainly produced some curious thinking. :-)

I have a drivers license, does that make me an expert on race cars?

To an audience of 12-year-old bicyclists, yes.

No, but it might betoken an interest in matters automotive. Or it might not; a drivers licence is trivial to get compared to a pilot's licence. Certainly someone who can't drive at all (and is unlikely ever to gain that skill) knows less about what driving a race car entails than someone who has.

Jay asked if I'd ever been pilot-in-command in combat, and in fact I have not...thank goodness. But given that I am an active licenced pilot, a licenced amateur radio operator (experienced with airborne mobile and space operations, both low-earth orbit and Molniya) and a professional software engineer, I actually do know a thing or two about aviation, aircraft systems, sensor platforms and systems and avionics. There's likely a few others on the Cellar with even more direct relevant experience, but they haven't weighed in yet.

But given the choice of flying an F-16 at low altitude just before you realize you're being shot at and flying an A-10 in the same situation, I'd prefer the A-10. As Bruce points out, it's got a metric assload of armor. F-16 are nice but considerably more fragile; they're also not as maneuverable. They do have the advantage of being able to leave the area very, very quickly, but that doesn't count when the *first* shot is fired.

F-16s are a lot tougher than youre giving them credit for, methinks... they can actually fly with a whole damn wing knocked off.

However, the A-10 is the airborne equivalent of a tank. Maybe not fast, maybe not fancy, but you dont want one pointed at you, and if one is theres not much you can do about it.

Having a PPL is a far cry from being allowed to fly a Hog or F16, especially in combat situations.

My question was not random. I do have a drivers license and a racing license. Having raced from the early 80's I can tell you, racing on the limit is in a total different league and can be achieved only by experience (and a little talent, perhaps).

Hippikos in his Pony:

http://sabailand.bizland.com/Mustang.jpg

A Ford...I should have known. :p

Yeah... I know what you mean. But this is a 289 HiPo... ;)

Very few people get to fly combat aircraft who aren't fully qualified and currently trained to fly them in combat; they're just too damned expensive to fly for the hell of it.

That doesn't mean that knowlege of the systems involved isn't available to those with the background. Most of what I know about the details of F-16 systems comes from an extremely detailed sim (and accompanying documentation) written by MicroProse way back when the F-16 was (relatively) new. And a few friends who were involved in the avionics design.

But then, most of what I know about the new Garmin GNS430 in my panel comes from the very detailed sim written by Garmin, because you don't want to learn that system in a live cockpit, either.

Yes, but only as long as ballistic thrust is available...and you can't be choosy about direction of flight. :-)

Seriously, I have trouble beliving "a whole damn wing knocked off" leaves a Falcon in flyable condition. Significant battle damage, perhaps...but the wings are necessary.