How Fast is this F-16 Going?

[cigdaze]

Thanks.......I would never have known the answer.


Looks like I'm in a pizzing contest with a newbie:lurk5:


YES DAVE.....I WAS THERE ALSO!!! I'll show you MY pics out at WoodTic.


OK ....Welcome to the site and congratulations on being able to take fantastic pictures. You have proved to me that you are the most genuine person that ever walked the face of an air race or show or whatever. Nice communicating with you.

BTW....I still call.....:icon_bs:


later

Dude, lighten up. No need to get all worked up.

 

[Chris]

Although nothing beats the Blue Angles, we saw the Thunderbirds.

Gonna have to beg to differ with ya' on that one.

 

[glassdave]

NOT DAVE :dupe:

Dave will tell you...I never leave home without my camera.


sample of my work.....

ya gotta watch out for ol' Mosi out on the isle.

 

[MOBILEMERCMAN]

Here is one cool pic

 

[MOBILEMERCMAN]

 

[Ratickle]

Here's my Fave........:sifone:

 

[Bobcat]

the difference between the blue angels and the U.S.A.F. Thunderbirds is easily explained..

the navy hand picks their best pilots to perform for the angels

while the Air Force can take any pilot in their ranks to fly with the Thunderbirds.

and yet the angels fall short in every competition known to man.

their is a reason they make the navy land on carriers , they are too sh*tty of "aviators" to land anywhere near a civilian population.:reddevil:

 

[Chris]

Who needs carriers? Kill everyone and use their airfields.

 

[mosi]

the difference between the blue angels and the U.S.A.F. Thunderbirds is easily explained..

the navy hand picks their best pilots to perform for the angels

while the Air Force can take any pilot in their ranks to fly with the Thunderbirds.

and yet the angels fall short in every competition known to man.

their is a reason they make the navy land on carriers , they are too sh*tty of "aviators" to land anywhere near a civilian population.:reddevil:

I will not say one way or another ...
.
.
.
....I'll just say that there are MARINE aviators that fly with the Blue Angels......
.
.
.....Semper Fi


:USA:

 

[Roger 1]

Must be a really long distance lense on that camera as the FAA regulations changed years ago and the government won't let them go supersonic over the populated sections of the continental US anymore.



Picture I took last week

I see that they figured out how to overcome retreating blade stall..

 

[mosi]

I see that they figured out how to overcome retreating blade stall..

yes sir.........how else would you bump up the speed to 769mph





:leaving:

 

[Cash Bar]

Not a month goes by that I don't hear sonic booms here. Ya, it's disallowed, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And it's not necessary for an aircraft to be exceeding mach 1.0 to show "visible signs of a shock wave." Often times, when even approaching mach at high sub-sonic speeds, there will be certain portion of an aircraft with higher relative velocities due to shape and size that will exhibit shock-like effects where there's a sudden delta pressure (which quickly condenses airborne moisture), making it appear to be traveling at supersonic speeds.

For instance, on a really foggy day you'll see trailing vortices emitted from commercial airliners' wingtips during landing or take-off (high angle of attack).
Same phenomenon.

I really hate when the genius in you comes out. :ack2:

I liked you better sitting at the table in the Boathouse in Sarasota with a beer in your hand as the rest of us debated how high a BAC you'd blow. :rofl: