<DIV>That issue has some other things to consider. The first one is the effect of altitude on the two aircraft. Above about 30k feet is where the Eagle really starts having the advantage. It's superior BVR package comes into play with its better detection range and the ability to fire at multiple targets at once. If there is a merg at high altitudes the Eagle turns better than the F-16. When you start getting lower the F-16 turns better and is harder to see. Of course the other two engined Mac fighter turns even better than the F-16 for those AIM-9M and X snap shots, the F-18 Hornet.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If the F-16 is supported with AWACS and data link systems that helps to make up for the high altitude range detection issue. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Justin</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>I am building a viper as well and our only problem with taking on the eagle<BR>>is its detection range due to the higher fidelity radar and ECM systems. The<BR>>Radar range has been advertised as nearly 2X the viper. Other features of<BR>>the radar and its flight characteristics make it a formidable platform for<BR>>anyone to take on. Where I used to work, the standard pitch was, you can get<BR>>2 vipers for every F-15, but its more than worth it to buy the Eagle<BR>>(performance, range, and payload).<BR>><BR>>If you can beat the first first part of the engagement (they both carry the<BR>>same missile), then we would have a chance at the merge.<BR><BR>>My preference is the Eagle, it just doesn't have the support for cockpit<BR>>building like the Viper.<BR><BR>>This is really great news though, I was very down in the dumps with what has<BR>>been happening with our beloved Falcon 4.<BR><BR>>Chris<BR></DIV><p><font face=arial size=-1>Do
you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://mail.yahoo.com" target="_blank"><b>Yahoo! Mail</a></b> - More reliable, more storage, less spam