# F-16's and F-18's are the only planes that can accelerate vertically? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 4, 2001, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857 "2001-12-04T17:24:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/41 "2001-12-05T15:37:42Z")
> [@](#): > > There’s also the fact that it costs MUCH less to produce and maintain than the F-14 or F-15. While I am no aviation expert, a quick check at [Federation of American Scientists](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/index.html) website finds: [ul] [li]Aircraft == Unit Cost [1998$][/li][li]F-14 == $38 million[/li][li]F-15 == $43 million[/li][li]F-16 == $26.9 million[/li][li]F-18 == $39.5 million[/li][/ul] These are unit costs over the total program (later units are cheaper than initial ones). Maintenance is not included in these figures. Can anyone cite numbers for maintenance or mission costs? ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/42 "2001-12-05T17:41:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bernse \* > \*\*You hear something like that every now and then about aircraft from WW2 (although I’ve not heard it about the Corsair before… they were not exactly the sleekest aircraft of the war). While I don’t believe thats ever been proven, the flipside is that _if_ that were possible the aircraft would almost certainly be uncontrollable as the control surfaces would be useless. I think the ME262 reportedly had it happen as well, and I’d be more inclined to believe that it would before any prop plane. \*\* As I understand it, there were a number of prop aircraft that might have “broken” the sound barrier, although, to my knowledge, none were ever actually recorded as having done so, as it always happened in uncontrolled dives. Compressability frequently locked up the controls in these cases, often casuing fatal wrecks. The Corsair and the Lightning are the two aircraft I most often hear assosciated with this claim. ---
**Author:** ![bernse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@bernse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bernse)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/43 "2001-12-05T17:42:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aschrott \* > \*\* > When the Hornet was first introduced it was criticized for having been the loser in a fly-off design competition with the prototype that became the F-16. But in head-to-head ACM trials (at Yuma, I think) with the F-16 after development for the navy, the F-18 came out about even with its lighter, quicker competitor. Considering that the Hornet has considerably more advanced avionics, capacity for BVR missiles (which I don’t think are used on the F-16), and more advanced ground attack systems, it is clearly the more capable plane. > > Original shortfalls in range and cruise performance were fixed early in the program, and the hornet has since been a capable long-range attack plane. > > Plus I happen to think it’s cool looking 😉 > > There’s also the fact that it costs MUCH less to produce and maintain than the F-14 or F-15. \*\* [hijack] Thats not entirely true. While the Cobra (YF-17) did lose to the F-16 in the light fighter flyoff, there were several reasons that the Navy chose it and the AF did not… not the least of which being that the F-17 had 2 engines and the Falcon 1. There is an awful lot of people accusing the gvt of doctoring figures that make the F/A-18 series more “attractive” over the F-14. A lot of this is because the govt destroyed the F-14 tooling earlier so now there is no choice _but_ to go with 18s for replacement aircraft. I have seen many threads on other boards involving people from the DoD and contractors giving their bit on both sides. They’ve been extremely interesting. What I picked up at the end of it all - The 18E/F is not worth the cost. The Tomcat in its variants (including Bombcat and the other aborted variants) are very capable aircraft and could almost certainly do the job at least as well as the Hornet and cheaper to boot. My .02 [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![aschrott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@aschrott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aschrott)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/44 "2001-12-05T18:14:40Z")
**Bernse** : I’ll take a look at those threads if I can find them. My comment was not a bottom-line comparison between the F-18 and any other plane, but rather a response to the assertion that the F-18 is a “weak kneed, short-legged, piece of crap” – one that I don’t think is supportable, even if its cost-to-performance ratio is higher than some would like. I agree that the F-14 is in many respects the more capable plane (and my personal favorite), and I am not familiar with the Bombcat variant, but I don’t think that any Tomcat variant could match either the ground attack or close arial combat competence of the F-18. The F-14 was optimized for long-range interception, and no matter what kind of weapons or new systems you hang on it, it isn’t made to do the variety of tasks that the Hornet can. I do think it’s a mistake to try and replace the Tomcat fleet with Hornets, though. The Phoenix missile system alone would have made keeping Tomcat production alive worthwhile, IMO. As to operating costs, I found these cost per operating hour figures here: [http://api.hq.faa.gov/economic/742SECT4.PDF](http://api.hq.faa.gov/economic/742SECT4.PDF) F-16: $1,850-2,201 depending on variant F-18: $3,023 F-14: $3,988 F-15: $4,332–4,747 depending on variant Obviously the F-16 is the bargain here, but if it had been adapted for rough carrier operations like the Hornet was, it too would cost more. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/45 "2001-12-05T19:42:41Z")
Thanks for the name Cobra manoever. A google search turned up [http://www.incredible-adventures.com/migs/planes.html](http://www.incredible-adventures.com/migs/planes.html) [http://www.russian-gateway.com.au/migs.htm](http://www.russian-gateway.com.au/migs.htm) This page [http://www.royfc.com/links/acft\_video\_flank.html](http://www.royfc.com/links/acft_video_flank.html) claims to have video of the manoevers, but the links come up empty. Several sites mention that the Su-27 actually first performed the Cobra. Anyone know what a Tailslide is? One more link [http://www.bushcat.com/mig.html](http://www.bushcat.com/mig.html) So, how much are you all willing to pay to fly in a MiG? ---
**Author:** ![\_Uigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/e9a140/32.png) [@\_Uigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Uigi)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/46 "2001-12-05T23:34:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aschrott \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Concur that the F/A-18 is a weak kneed, short-legged, piece of crap. Fancy systems? True. Power and range? False.** > > I disagree. > > Original shortfalls in range and cruise performance were fixed early in the program, and the hornet has since been a capable long-range attack plane. > > Plus I happen to think it’s cool looking 😉 > > There’s also the fact that it costs MUCH less to produce and maintain than the F-14 or F-15. \*\* (the above post is edited for brevity only) I won’t argue unit price, nor will I argue looks, but when the A-7 (and KA-7) Corsair went away (replaced by the F/A-18), all of a sudden Texaco duties went through the roof. Not only were the KA-6’s and S-3B’s (that had been configured for Texaco duty) strained to the limit to support the “Whornets”, but the refueling situation for any decent “chainsaw” situation got out of hand because of F/A-18 fuel state. F-14’s were no problem and didn’t contribute to the problems of juggling all the aluminum. My only point is this: Short legged TacAir like the Hornet decrease the overall warfighting capability of a CVN. From what I understand about the “all new and improved” version contributes only minimal improvements to the situation. ---
**Author:** ![aschrott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@aschrott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aschrott)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/47 "2001-12-05T23:51:45Z")
**’Uigi** - point taken. I haven’t come across that info before, but I can’t dispute it. ---
**Author:** ![dsmerritt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b77776/32.png) [@dsmerritt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dsmerritt)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/48 "2011-07-06T16:24:35Z")
All debates about the aerodynamic or air combat superiority of either the F-16 or F-14 aside, I was greatly amused at an airshow some years ago when the F-14 was still in service and appeared along with an F-16. They were both working airplanes. The F-16 had access panels sealed with crudely applied silicon sealer and a frayed cover on the seat, and the F-14 had large sheet metal drip pans full of kitty litter (sorb all) under it as it sat on the ramp. Into which it was dripping hydraulic fluid. The Navy ground crew said it was very difficult to keep all the hydraulics for the wing sweep sealed up tight, but the plane had a large reservoir so it wasn’t an operational problem. Kind of like the 40 gallon oil tanks on big round engines, for which the expression was always, if they’re not leaking oil they’re out. The Air Force guys readily conceded the manuverability advantages of the swing wing, and acknolwedged that it gave the much larger and heavier F-14 response close to that of the much smaller lighter F-16. They couldn’t help themselves about the hydraulic leaks, though, and ragged on the Tomcat drivers that if the Russians ever develpoed a hydraulic fluid seeking missle, the Tomcat guys were in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/49 "2011-07-06T16:46:17Z")
Zombies can accelerate vertically - right to the top of the forum. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/50 "2011-07-06T19:56:46Z")
So if you had a really long treadmill oriented vertically… ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/51 "2011-07-07T00:22:13Z")
Re: Aschrott’s “signature” “Every tool is at least two tools - one of which is a hammer!” 😛 As a carpenter, I can attest to the fact that,\*\*\* that \*\*\*statement is absolutely and unequivocally, CORRECT! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/52 "2011-07-07T00:57:51Z")
I know this is a zombie, but here’ s a relevant post to the OP’s question. Most of the answers upthread way back then were fan-boy junk. [Fighter jets flying out of commercial civilian airports. - #57 by LSLGuy - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13668548) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/53 "2011-07-07T03:48:17Z")
> [@dsmerritt](#): > > All debates about the aerodynamic or air combat superiority of either the F-16 or F-14 aside, I was greatly amused at an airshow some years ago when the F-14 was still in service and appeared along with an F-16. They were both working airplanes. The F-16 had access panels sealed with crudely applied silicon sealer and a frayed cover on the seat, and the F-14 had large sheet metal drip pans full of kitty litter (sorb all) under it as it sat on the ramp. Into which it was dripping hydraulic fluid. > > The Navy ground crew said it was very difficult to keep all the hydraulics for the wing sweep sealed up tight, but the plane had a large reservoir so it wasn’t an operational problem. Kind of like the 40 gallon oil tanks on big round engines, for which the expression was always, if they’re not leaking oil they’re out. > > The Air Force guys readily conceded the manuverability advantages of the swing wing, and acknolwedged that it gave the much larger and heavier F-14 response close to that of the much smaller lighter F-16. They couldn’t help themselves about the hydraulic leaks, though, and ragged on the Tomcat drivers that if the Russians ever develpoed a hydraulic fluid seeking missle, the Tomcat guys were in trouble. (Note this is a very old thread) Thing with planes, as with most vehicles, is they are built for a specific job. They may excel in one area and be crap in another. Add in cost and maintenance and you have a complex calculation. It is hard to say one plane is better or worse overall. It is easier to say it is better or worse in a particular situation. Whether the cost and effort to maintain that plane makes it all worth it is yet a different calculation. Also…welcome to the SDMB! ---
**Author:** ![StrangerThanFiction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@StrangerThanFiction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StrangerThanFiction)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/54 "2011-07-07T17:20:13Z")
I know it’s a zombie and all, but according to [this NASA study (PDF)](http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-12442-sid-d8405a3a805ceea34e8a94fcacfac8b0.html), an F-15 climbing at Mach .80 from sea level will initially burn approximately 1,000 lbs of fuel per _minute_. You’ve got to add a few thousand pounds to any of the empty weights to account for fuel if you want realistic thrust/weight ratios. Obviously, the weight will decrease as the fuel burns off, but the thrust will decrease significantly with altitude as well. Also, nobody figured drag into their thrust/weight calculations, which likely adds a few thousand pounds to required thrust… Edit - what **LSLGuy** said. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/55 "2011-07-08T19:15:47Z")
Just a guess, but the old British Lightening was famous for its vertical ascents. Could that be a plane that could accelerate vertically ? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857/56 "2011-07-09T15:34:30Z")
No. This [English Electric Lightning - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning) has a decent discussion of climb performance. The specs down at the bottom indicate total thrust of 32,000 lbs & a weight ranging from 31000 lbs with no fuel up to 45,000 lbs with full fuel and armament. As I explain here [Fighter jets flying out of commercial civilian airports. - #57 by LSLGuy - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13668548) (linked to above), you need thrust a lot larger than weight to accelerate straight up. No fighter to date from any country really has that capability. Though it makes for cool PR. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-16s-and-f-18s-are-the-only-planes-that-can-accelerate-vertically/96857.md?page=2)