USAF or Naval Aviation?

[Pags]

Pags, you fly the new one. Leave the complaining to the Phrog/Legacy Seahawk guys.

the vis, ergonomics, and ECS still suck.

 

[HeyJoe]

Interesting. However, I'm sure that is only the airframe/engine itself. The "stuff" we carry now accounts for a great deal of money. In this day and age, if you don't include the sensors to the cost for any recon asset, you've basically purchased a cool trainer that doesn't do much other than convert jet fuel to noise and fun.
Our Class A mishap 2 years ago cost us a full sensor suite. That takes time and lots of $$$ to overcome.

Same for UAVs, cost of air frame can be rivalled if not exceeded by the sensor package costs.

 

[PropStop]

It's very physical, and some of the control movements are not "finesse" movements. Add to that a crappy air conditioner, poor visibility, terrible ergonomics, and you've got an aircraft that only a mother could love.

Man, P-3 guys gotta love that thing!

Answer me this, do your flight instruments, radios, etc, tend to change position from plane to plane?

 

[Son of a Grunt]

My dad said that I can't get jets because I will be to tall(over 5'8") and to heavy(over 180lb.). Is this accurate?

 

[phrogpilot73]

My dad said that I can't get jets because I will be to tall(over 5'8") and to heavy(over 180lb.). Is this accurate?

No. Stop listening to your Dad. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[A4sForever]

They are BOTH good .... Naval Aviation is better. Better for a whole bunch of reasons; possibly GREAT.

Q.E.D.

 

[MasterBates]

I don't mean to be an a-hole, but your dad is talking out his ass.

I am 6'4" 255# and I fit in the smallest jet we have (T-45)

 

[HuggyU2]

For the USAF (if I remember correctly), the number are 238 lbs, and 6' 5". They're starting to get stricter on those numbers, but I've flown with guys that were probably ~280 lbs,... albeit a few years ago.

 

[HH-60H]

For the USAF (if I remember correctly)?!?!?!, the number are 238 lbs, and 6' 5". They're starting to get stricter on those numbers, but I've flown with guys that were probably ~280 lbs,... albeit a few years ago.

WTF? We brought you on board (that's like "on board" a ship, a nautical term) to be the expert on the Air Force. You better get your sh!t together.

 

[MasterBates]

I think the numbers to start Naval Aviator Training without a waiver is 235#. Beyond that, there are ejection seat waivers and such. I BELIEVE but don't KNOW that NFO's have a seat waiver at around 210 due to the the T-2.

 

[HuggyU2]

WTF? We brought you on board (that's like "on board" a ship, a nautical term) to be the expert on the Air Force. You better get sh!t together.

OK, OK, OK!!! I'll start verifying my shizzle before I post. Geeeeezzzz!!

Plus,... don't you know??,.... donuts cause memory loss.

And, now that I'm "onboard", do I have to "swab the deck,... matey"?

 

[skim]

And, now that I'm "onboard", do I have to "swab the deck,... matey"?

No, that job is for us wannabes....

 

[cosmania]

I don't mean to be an a-hole, but your dad is talking out his ass.

I am 6'4" 255# and I fit in the smallest jet we have (T-45)

Wow, MB. . . you're a fat ass Does the trailer lean and groan when you embark? By the way, the T-45 is spacious compared to the A-4. I am totally average Ht/Wt and I thought the A-4 cockpit was small.

 

[A4sForever]

.... I am totally average Ht/Wt and I thought the A-4 cockpit was small.

I loved how the Navy always seemed to put the biggest guys in the A-4 and the smallest guys in the F-4/A-6 .... crazy.

The ONLY 'anthro' we ever had was sitting height for the TA-4 vs. the TF-9 ... some marginally height challenged guys would stick newspaper in their U-trou to "heighten" themselves in an attempt to go to the TA-4 vice the TF-9 as a STUD.

 

[Son of a Grunt]

I think the numbers to start Naval Aviator Training without a waiver is 235#. Beyond that, there are ejection seat waivers and such. I BELIEVE but don't KNOW that NFO's have a seat waiver at around 210 due to the the T-2.

What?