They should have sent Batman with his Batwing!
Spy Balloon
- Thread starter ChevyReb
- Start date
- Status
The stated service ceiling for F-18 is 50000 feet. F-22 is 65000. Gets harder to fly at those altitudes so scoring gun hits there would be a great accomplishment. The missile shot on the balloon was taken from about 58000 feet and the balloon was between 60000 and 65000 feet.
My dad once told me when he was in flight school in the late 50s he had a T-33 jet trainer at 30,000 feet and he could slam the stick all the way right or left and in a few seconds the wings would bank. Probably not a great idea to try that at low altitudes! That's kind of like a glider with the long wings, most steering is with the rudder.
Quote from a web source on an F-18:
"I can tell you my experience during my stay in Zaragoza Air Base in northeastern Spain, in 1998. After heavy maintenance work, the twin-seater was ready to fly. In order to check all work done, we did a parabolic flight in clean configuration (no loads under wings or fuselage). It was a flight test so we decided to push the limits a little and see the real capability of the General Electric F404 engine. After acceleration and trying to maintain the best angle, we were able to climb up to 63,000 ft.
It was quite difficult to fly the plane when crossing 45 or 48 thousands (I don't remember well), so we decided to connect the auto-pilot. The auto-pilot can handle the plane easily at those altitudes with such low air density.
I recall the last portion of the climb was a nice parabolic trajectory in zero-g (you cannot imagine how dirty the cockpit was, I could see a pencil and some screws from maintenance floating in front of me, among some other things) until we regained positive g's in the descent. It was an interesting flight, but as stated by others, not practical at all from the combat viewpoint.
My dad once told me when he was in flight school in the late 50s he had a T-33 jet trainer at 30,000 feet and he could slam the stick all the way right or left and in a few seconds the wings would bank. Probably not a great idea to try that at low altitudes! That's kind of like a glider with the long wings, most steering is with the rudder.
Quote from a web source on an F-18:
"I can tell you my experience during my stay in Zaragoza Air Base in northeastern Spain, in 1998. After heavy maintenance work, the twin-seater was ready to fly. In order to check all work done, we did a parabolic flight in clean configuration (no loads under wings or fuselage). It was a flight test so we decided to push the limits a little and see the real capability of the General Electric F404 engine. After acceleration and trying to maintain the best angle, we were able to climb up to 63,000 ft.
It was quite difficult to fly the plane when crossing 45 or 48 thousands (I don't remember well), so we decided to connect the auto-pilot. The auto-pilot can handle the plane easily at those altitudes with such low air density.
I recall the last portion of the climb was a nice parabolic trajectory in zero-g (you cannot imagine how dirty the cockpit was, I could see a pencil and some screws from maintenance floating in front of me, among some other things) until we regained positive g's in the descent. It was an interesting flight, but as stated by others, not practical at all from the combat viewpoint.
Bandit723
Veteran Member
So what you are saying is that Canada does not fly F-18's and tried to shoot down a balloon with bullets when a missile would have worked
That's what I would say too if I missed trying to pop a giant balloon.
Francesco
Veteran Member
I would be more worried about inflation than this ballon. Better buckle up.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I believe Canada was flying the F-18 in the article posted. My point was:
1. Flying an F18 at an altitude above its service ceiling dirty (carrying missiles) is probably like driving a formula one car on an oiled up race track.
2. Making gun (that would be bullets) hits at that altitude would be pretty impressive on a slow moving target.
3. Apparently they made hits and bullets were not effective in bringing it down. So a missile would have been required to bring it down.
1. Flying an F18 at an altitude above its service ceiling dirty (carrying missiles) is probably like driving a formula one car on an oiled up race track.
2. Making gun (that would be bullets) hits at that altitude would be pretty impressive on a slow moving target.
3. Apparently they made hits and bullets were not effective in bringing it down. So a missile would have been required to bring it down.
1. Flying an F18 at an altitude above its service ceiling dirty (carrying missiles) is probably like driving a formula one car on an oiled up race track.
2. Making gun (that would be bullets) hits at that altitude would be pretty impressive on a slow moving target.
3. Apparently they made hits and bullets were not effective in bringing it down. So a missile would have been required to bring it down.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I believe Canada was flying the F-18 in the article posted. My point was:
1. Flying an F18 at an altitude above its service ceiling dirty (carrying missiles) is probably like driving a formula one car on an oiled up race track.
2. Making gun (that would be bullets) hits at that altitude would be pretty impressive on a slow moving target.
3. Apparently they made hits and bullets were not effective in bringing it down. So a missile would have been required to bring it down.
Yeah well there's that too. And I expect that will prove painful for everyone myself included. Thankfully I have no real debt and my job is pretty recession proof unless they close schools down.
My largest concern is that the Russian/Ukraine escalates and or a China/Taiwan conflict emerges to a full on war and our kids get called up to goto war.
Then there's the smaller issues like the border crisis that eventually is going to cause very bad outcomes. But looks like until there is a 911 moment that's no big deal.
Francesco
Veteran Member
Are you a teacher? Or principal?
Francesco
Veteran Member
Are you a teacher? Or principal? Wait...Not the janitor. A bad ass janitor with a sick Camaro? Now thats really cool just like a better version of Reese Bobby and his chevelle.
LOL ^^^ I'm an IT guy. Used to be high stress corporate but now lower stress and great hours and time off. Although the pay isn't as good, the perks are worth the cut. I've only got a few years before I can retire...hopefully! You couldn't pay me enough to be an Administrator/principle! I could probably be ok teaching network or welding/electrical or something, but I like my current role.
- Status
