5 ms·

Looking at the listing as shared by another poster, it's striking how little the thing weighs: The empty weight is 8640 lb (3919 kg) and the maximum takeoff we

Looking at the listing as shared by another poster, it's striking how little the thing weighs: The empty weight is 8640 lb (3919 kg) and the maximum takeoff weight is 13375 lb (6069 kg). It's maximum takeoff weight is still well below the empty weight (18,900 lbs) of an F-16.

nickff 6y ago
You're comparing a light, subsonic interceptor with no search radar and primitive missile capabilities (only available on the last versions) to a relatively modern multi-role fighter.
- zokier 6y ago
  > relatively modern multi-role fighter F-16 first flight was 45 years ago. Or put other way, F-16 first flight was significantly closer to MiG-17 first flight than F-35 (which gets to represent modern aircraft) first flight (24 years vs 32 years) And F-16 was explicitly designed to pretty light-weight aircraft for its time, compared to e.g. its contemporary F-15: > Boyd's design called for a light-weight fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio, high maneuverability, and a gross weight of less than 20,000 lb (9,100 kg), half that of its counterpart, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle (it did end up bit fatter than that though..)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
greedo 6y ago
The F-16's engine alone, is 70% heavier than the VK1 on the MIG-17. (edited for engine typo)
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Modern 'fighter' planes are almost the same size as the bombers of old: B-17 length is 23 meters and SU-27 length is 22 meters. I was really shocked when I saw them next to each other on some photo.
- justin66 6y ago
  A small, modern fighter like the F-16 can carry a much higher bomb load, as well.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    > modern fighter like the F-16 Modern fighter? Having first flown in 1974 (46 years ago), it is actually closer to B-17 - first flight in 1935 (39 years prior) - than to us.
    - greedo 6y ago
      I think that using fourth and fifth generation to describe aircraft is better, especially when you combine it with production status. For example, both the SU-27 and F-16 are clearly fourth generation, and both currently in production. Same with the F-15. They may have origins that are quite a long time ago, but they're still effective aircraft in many scenarios. Fifth generation would be F-22, F-35, J-20, FC-31, and if you want to be generous, the Su-57. Stealth is the primary attribute, though supercruise is sometimes considered a key attribute as well.
    - justin66 6y ago
      I wouldn't argue for or against the use of the term "modern" to describe the F-16 since that's the most boring thing ever, but it is the most common fighter in service today, with multiple active production lines.
bitminer 6y ago
This, and the competitive US aircraft of the day, were basically a chair with a jet engine attached. A couple of small wings for lift, and off you go. The courage of an airman climbing into such a machine is remarkable.

nickff 6y ago

You're comparing a light, subsonic interceptor with no search radar and primitive missile capabilities (only available on the last versions) to a relatively modern multi-role fighter.

zokier 6y ago
> relatively modern multi-role fighter F-16 first flight was 45 years ago. Or put other way, F-16 first flight was significantly closer to MiG-17 first flight than F-35 (which gets to represent modern aircraft) first flight (24 years vs 32 years) And F-16 was explicitly designed to pretty light-weight aircraft for its time, compared to e.g. its contemporary F-15: > Boyd's design called for a light-weight fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio, high maneuverability, and a gross weight of less than 20,000 lb (9,100 kg), half that of its counterpart, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle (it did end up bit fatter than that though..)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

greedo 6y ago

The F-16's engine alone, is 70% heavier than the VK1 on the MIG-17. (edited for engine typo)

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

Modern 'fighter' planes are almost the same size as the bombers of old: B-17 length is 23 meters and SU-27 length is 22 meters. I was really shocked when I saw them next to each other on some photo.

justin66 6y ago
A small, modern fighter like the F-16 can carry a much higher bomb load, as well.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  > modern fighter like the F-16 Modern fighter? Having first flown in 1974 (46 years ago), it is actually closer to B-17 - first flight in 1935 (39 years prior) - than to us.
  - greedo 6y ago
    I think that using fourth and fifth generation to describe aircraft is better, especially when you combine it with production status. For example, both the SU-27 and F-16 are clearly fourth generation, and both currently in production. Same with the F-15. They may have origins that are quite a long time ago, but they're still effective aircraft in many scenarios. Fifth generation would be F-22, F-35, J-20, FC-31, and if you want to be generous, the Su-57. Stealth is the primary attribute, though supercruise is sometimes considered a key attribute as well.
  - justin66 6y ago
    I wouldn't argue for or against the use of the term "modern" to describe the F-16 since that's the most boring thing ever, but it is the most common fighter in service today, with multiple active production lines.

bitminer 6y ago

This, and the competitive US aircraft of the day, were basically a chair with a jet engine attached. A couple of small wings for lift, and off you go. The courage of an airman climbing into such a machine is remarkable.