PDA

View Full Version : Who would win?



scaredycat1
09-05-2007, 06:00 PM
A Spad and an F-16, in an area 1 mile long, 1 mile wide and 1 mile high. Start the merge at 4000 feet, guns only, no fire till after the merge.

Waldo.Pepper
09-05-2007, 06:16 PM
The wake turbulence of the F-16 would destroy the Spad instantly after it passed.

Akronnick
09-05-2007, 08:00 PM
The F-16 could RAM the SPAD and probably not suffer any critical damage...

Grand_Armee
09-05-2007, 08:04 PM
The ejected .30 caliber cartridge casings from the Spad would sucked into the intake of the f-16 causing the destruction of it's engine and the loss of the aircraft.

Hands down! ...Spad wins!

Choctaw111
09-05-2007, 08:18 PM
Spad for sure. No matter where the Spad's gunfire would hit the F-16, the bullets would hit something important that would surely lead to the jet's demise. Can you imagine trying to hit a slow and highly agile target like the Spad in a comparatively fast and clumsy F-16?

Copperhead311th
09-05-2007, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Grand_Armee:
The ejected .30 caliber cartridge casings from the Spad would sucked into the intake of the f-16 causing the destruction of it's engine and the loss of the aircraft.

Hands down! ...Spad wins!

Ya know that stuff yer smokn' is illeagal as hell and will get you some really long jail time?

Need i remind every one of the Isreali F-16 pilot who got his right wing torn off and still managed to fly the plane back home and land it.
But then again it depends which Viper you talking about F-16 Block D would slap a spad so hard the pilots mother would scream so loud they'd here all the way in India.

Grand_Armee
09-05-2007, 11:04 PM
LOL...well, we all know why the everyone flies jet aircraft today. It's the same reason the British army isn't armed with the longbow.

O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E

BTW...what drug do you think I'm on? ...I surely am getting no pleasure from it whatsoever.

DKoor
09-05-2007, 11:07 PM
S.P.A.D. has chance only if it's equipped with 37mm cannon.

Friendly_flyer
09-05-2007, 11:45 PM
I don't think the F-16 would have the room needed for manoeuvring within the 1x1x1 mile cube.

leitmotiv
09-06-2007, 12:18 AM
Gawd, this forum has sunk.

waffen-79
09-06-2007, 12:24 AM
Centered Stick beats geehh side-mounted stick any Day! BE SURE!

Spad FTW

jadger
09-06-2007, 12:31 AM
in a gun only battle, I think it'd be inconclusive.

Remember that the 109 vs Hurricane, the Hurricane being fabric let the explosive cannon rounds fly right through it. Now, the F16 with a bigger cannon on a fabric fuselage, the F16 would have to score a hit on the engine or pilot, tough task at the speeds an F16 flies. While the machine gun of the SPAD wouldnt do much either.

whoever runs out of fuel last, wins

mrsiCkstar
09-06-2007, 02:11 AM
F-16 would win. the Spad would never even hit it, whereas the F-16's nifty targeting system for the gun wouldn't make it that difficult to hit the slow Spad. maneuvering might be a little tight in the area provided though...

besides if the spad ever got close enough behind the Viper pilot could just put some flares on him and ignite the bastage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RAF_OldBuzzard
09-06-2007, 02:22 AM
Copperhead311th:

Need I remind YOU that the Isreali plane you speak of was an F-15 and not and F-16?

ViktorViktor
09-06-2007, 03:40 AM
F-16 would win of course, cuz the SPAD would run out of fuel first.

Rammjaeger
09-06-2007, 05:56 AM
The Spad is way too slow to constitute a good target for an F-16.

JG53Frankyboy
09-06-2007, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
The Spad is way too slow to constitute a good target for an F-16.

the Viper can aim the SPAD as a groundtarget than http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bremspropeller
09-06-2007, 06:11 AM
Well, let's have a look at what "Snake" sez:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/916starfighter/cartoons/sure16.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

mrsiCkstar
09-06-2007, 06:18 AM
Ah... the Cloud9 F-104... great add-on for MSFS!

JimmyBlonde
09-06-2007, 06:44 AM
Spad V F-16, no contest, F-16 every time.

But

F-16 V Handley Page 400 bomber with AI gunners.

F-16 PKed on 9 out of 10 passes.

luftluuver
09-06-2007, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
Need i remind every one of the Isreali F-16 pilot who got his right wing torn off and still managed to fly the plane back home and land it.
When did a F-15 become a F-16? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Worf101
09-06-2007, 06:50 AM
Clubber Lange, easy.

Da Worfster

Choctaw111
09-06-2007, 06:56 AM
Send this question in to the History Channel. Let the "experts" decide.

RAF_OldBuzzard
09-06-2007, 07:02 AM
Spad...no contest! Especially since you want them to remain in a 1 mile box.

Approach speed of the F-16 is roughly 150 Kts (172 Mph). In order for the '16 to even have a change to stay in the box, it would have to enter at approach speed with gear and flaps down, and a high AOA. This gives limited manouverability, and there is no way that the '16 would ever be able to get a 'gun solution' on the Spad.

Let's assume a Spad XIII with a top speed of around 138 Mph (34 Mph slower than the '16's approagh speed). Now the '16 is faster, but with the box limitation, the Spad is eventually going to be able to 'head him off at the pass', and bingo...one dead Falcon.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-06-2007, 07:02 AM
Depends. Which one has a Pirate pilot & which one has a Ninja?

DuxCorvan
09-06-2007, 07:03 AM
The Spad is relatively so slow and low, it can be considered an almost static target, like a truck or a balloon. The high-rate cannon of the F-16 and its target system would reduce the flimsy structure of that flying laundry hanger to smithereens in a single pass and in a pair of seconds, without the Spad pilot even realizing what was happening, well before having the F-16 at range. Remember also, that WW1 planes were covered in highly flammable substances.

The twin Vickers of the Spad wouldn't but tickle the F16, in case they could hit it by chance, which I doubt. The only danger for the F-16 would be to accidentally ram the Spad, specially the heavy Hispano-Suiza engine, the most consistent piece of mass in the old plane.

Well, I assume the F-16 wouldn't try to actually turn with the Spad, but even so, it would be an uneventful show, the F-16 making immense fast circles around a sick-motion Spad turning like a top to try helpleesly to keep the fast arrow in sight; the Spad may even stall and spin with such continuous and energy losing banking.

BTW, the Spad wasn't the best bird for turning fights -like Albatros, it was a ww1 BnZ plane. Better use Nieuports, Sopwiths or triplanes for that.

Whirlin_merlin
09-06-2007, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Grand_Armee:
LOL...well, we all know why the everyone flies jet aircraft today. It's the same reason the British army isn't armed with the longbow.

O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E

BTW...what drug do you think I'm on? ...I surely am getting no pleasure from it whatsoever.

Not always quite that simple, the longbow was a more effective weapon than the early firearms that followed it. However it took more trianing and skill to operate a longbow.

I know someone who used to work at the royal armoury, he once put a bodkin arrow from a replica yew longbow through a modern kevlar vest at over 100yds. (Nobody tell the taliban).

DuxCorvan
09-06-2007, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grand_Armee:
LOL...well, we all know why the everyone flies jet aircraft today. It's the same reason the British army isn't armed with the longbow.

O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E

BTW...what drug do you think I'm on? ...I surely am getting no pleasure from it whatsoever.

Not always quite that simple, the longbow was a more effective weapon than the early firearms that followed it. However it took more trianing and skill to operate a longbow.

I know someone who used to work at the royal armoury, he once put a bodkin arrow from a replica yew longbow through a modern kevlar vest at over 100yds. (Nobody tell the taliban). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true. Longbow was an effective, long ranged and accurate weapon. It had more piercing range than a crossbow, much more accuracy than a smoothbore musket and could be shot ten to twenty times faster. But, as you well said, a good longbowman required a whole life to train. It was a whole life system, so longbowmen could only be found in England and related countries, making very hard to cover the casualties. Crossbows and muskets were inferior weapons, but anyone could be made a crossbowman or musketeer in a few days, making them cheap and readily available. Once the hard art of longbow shooting stopped passing from generation to generation, the longbow was history.

huggy87
09-06-2007, 08:16 AM
The Spad would win, but not because he would shoot down the viper. The viper would eventually smack into the walls of an area that small. The spad need only fly around and not hit the walls himself.

Now a 2x2x2 box would be a different story, the viper would even be able to go vertical.

DuxCorvan
09-06-2007, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by huggy87:
The Spad would win, but not because he would shoot down the viper. The viper would eventually smack into the walls of an area that small. The spad need only fly around and not hit the walls himself.

Now a 2x2x2 box would be a different story, the viper would even be able to go vertical.

That way, I can beat a F-16 riding a lawnmower. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

stathem
09-06-2007, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grand_Armee:
LOL...well, we all know why the everyone flies jet aircraft today. It's the same reason the British army isn't armed with the longbow.

O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E

BTW...what drug do you think I'm on? ...I surely am getting no pleasure from it whatsoever.

Not always quite that simple, the longbow was a more effective weapon than the early firearms that followed it. However it took more trianing and skill to operate a longbow.

I know someone who used to work at the royal armoury, he once put a bodkin arrow from a replica yew longbow through a modern kevlar vest at over 100yds. (Nobody tell the taliban). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true. Longbow was an effective, long ranged and accurate weapon. It had more piercing range than a crossbow, much more accuracy than a smoothbore musket and could be shot ten to twenty times faster. But, as you well said, a good longbowman required a whole life to train. It was a whole life system, so longbowmen could only be found in England and related countries, making very hard to cover the casualties. Crossbows and muskets were inferior weapons, but anyone could be made a crossbowman or musketeer in a few days, making them cheap and readily available. Once the hard art of longbow shooting stopped passing from generation to generation, the longbow was history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks very much for that explanation Dux, that's something I'd always wondered about.

Whirlin_merlin
09-06-2007, 11:57 AM
Since we have managed to well and truely hi-jack this thread I'll throw in a porely remembered longbow tale.

I have a dim memory of a story that the skeletons of some bowmen were once found, (possibly the Mary Rose). Anyway at first they didn't realise who they were and though the were all badly deformed, a life of bow use had dramatically changed their skeletons so much.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-06-2007, 12:00 PM
Correct, Mr Merlin. Twisted spines and big shoulders.

DuxCorvan
09-06-2007, 12:13 PM
Yeah, those guys were also incredibly strong. Nobody could put a string to their bows but them. They sure had a terrible old age because of that. Fortunately -or not- it was rare to live enough to be an old man those times.

MEGILE
09-06-2007, 12:20 PM
Me.

Doug_Thompson
09-06-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Gawd, this forum has sunk.

BoB is on the way.

Hoatee
09-06-2007, 02:01 PM
Neither would have any fuel.

So it would be no duel.

huggy87
09-06-2007, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
The Spad would win, but not because he would shoot down the viper. The viper would eventually smack into the walls of an area that small. The spad need only fly around and not hit the walls himself.

Now a 2x2x2 box would be a different story, the viper would even be able to go vertical.

That way, I can beat a F-16 riding a lawnmower. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you could, if confined to a 1x1x1 box.