A sidewinder might get firing solution on Toynbee on her broomstick if she was speaking (hot air)... but why risk it? Yet another reason all fighter aircraft need a cannon for those tricky close-in targets.
Very nice. The hesitation rolls were a little ragged but the slow flight was impressive.
Of course, you realise that fighter pilots dissolve into quivering goo if required to fly straight and level for more that 75 seconds at one go, which is why only adults are allowed to drive bombers....
It's nice to see an F-16 thrown around a bit for a change. All the USAF displays I've seen have been boring as hell .. just a series of formation passes.
The US Navy, on the other hand, does a great job of showing off what the F/A-18 can do, as do the Aussies.
Looking at this video, I'd have to guess that the 18 does in fact have a bit of an edge in agility over the 16. But then it's got the well-known problem of less range.
Funny that we're still getting excited over 1970's planes!
Bruce,
It's because they ain't built anything cooler since. Consider the SR-71 and when that was built.
Perry is mistaken - a cannon is not needed to deal with Polly Toynbee, a bucket of water would do the job.
"I am melting! I am melting!"
"I'd love one of these fellas to fly the thing fast and low, repeatedly, over Polly Toynbee's Tuscan villa while the witch is in residence with her broomstick."
Not repeatedly; a single pass, with some ordnance delivery (think: daisycutter) should do the trick.
Loved that video all the way through whilst checking out which new laptop to buy yesterday. I went to an airshow earlier this year in Tainan, south Taiwan (where I live), but they only put on show the IDF ("Indigenous Defence Fighter aka "I Don't Fly") and not their F-16s - which left me with a bit of a pet lip.
"Funny that we're still getting excited over 1970's planes!"
That's both the most accurate and most inaccurate thing I've read since Shakespeare. The fact is both seriously cool and utterly tragic at the same time.