I was reading a post in another thread put up by a fighter pilot. I asked him what the comparison was, from a standing start, between his C6 on full acceleration, and his jet on full afterburner.

It occurred to me that since we have a number of fighter pilots on the forum, who are C6 owners, why not ask the question. It would be really to hear from the guys/gals who fly, or flew fighters; F14, 15, 16, 18, 22, etc., also prop fighters... How do their C6, and their fighter compare on full acceleration?

 

F-14D ZONE 5 BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Awesome!

 

The C6 will win against any fighter up to 100 mph or so, if the comparison is standing start on a ruunway. Go out to the "boat" for a cat shot and it's a whole different story. Typical Cat shot 0 to 150 knots in 325 ft and about 3.5 seconds. Now that will cage your eyeballs.

 

Must be an incredible rush! Unless you're going to launch a C6 off a cat though, the comparison probably doesn't work... Wonder what the insurance company would think? I was thinking more about ground launched comparisons. Aren't there differences in launch characteristics between the various jets?

 

Acceleration (speed) is not a huge factor in fighters. What really matters is "g" and energy management. We deal in terms of "sustained turn rate, minimum turn radius and corner velocity" when talking about Basic Fighter Maneuvers or "dogfighting."

When comparing the F-15E and the C6 in this respect, no contest. 9 gs versus 1 g.

In the C6's defense, it does have a smaller turn radius. And if I might add, my C6 had a pretty good turn rate right before it slammed into the brick wall the other day.

Man... fighters and vettes in the same poll. Life just doesn't get better than this.

Jonathon "Springer" Breingan

 

A Viper friend was at Luke AF Base near Phoenix, at a Viper meeting. ( I guess the Commander had a Viper)
The Viper was faster to about 100 mph.
With afterburners the F-16 just about went vertical at about the Vipers 100 mph mark!

 

Wish I'd been there...

 

I know the MD-88 I fly for work will lose the first 1/2 mile but then the Mad dog will win.......:}

I bought the C-6 because it really is designed with a pilot in mind.....

FWIW...

 

Great hearing all the comparisons. The AF contractor I retired from a year and a half ago tested most of the engines in those jets at Arnold AF Base, TN. Last one I worked on was for the F-22.

 

It's been a while, but as I remember, the F-16 takes about 10 to 12 seconds to accelerate from a stand-still to lift-off at about 130 knots (146 mph) . . . but then it's just getting started, and will continue to accelerate at an ever increasing rate. The C6 would hold it's own up to about 100 mph or so, then you'd need to get out of the way of the jet exhaust!

 

Ive flown in F-16s a couple times. With all the weight starting out the c6 "feels" faster. But after about 100mph the 16 wins hands down. Especially when pulling back on the stick. Anyone thats been on an airliner knows that planes arent known for their acceleration. Yes an F16 is better than a 747 but there is no throw you back in the seat feeling initially.

 

Very observations, any other C6 fighter pilots want to give us their impressions...?

 

I'm not a pilot, but I flew in a WWII era P51 Mustang with a 2 seat setup about a year ago.

My fat, office resident a$$ had difficulty dealing with the G's when the guy did some strafing runs through some desert washes east of Falcon Field (AZ). It was a gas, but I practically had a panic attack by the end of the run because my body was doing things its never done before.

Very weird pulling G's and a far cry from corning in my C6, but the C6 is as good as it get's on 4 wheels and under $150,000.

 

Amen to that Brother...

 

Souds like the C6 does pretty good considering the price difference....

 

Can’t talk about afterburner ops but I did take a CAT shot off a Carrier in a C-2. Much faster, like 0-140 in 2 seconds.

DocRings?