Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Fineus on May 06, 2004, 06:14:05 pm
-
Same premise as the car thread seems to be - post images / tell us what jet / aircraft you find most attractive... this doesn't necessarily mean the most deadly / fastest etc.
To kick us off, the F-18
(http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/aircraft/fa18/f18-argm.jpg)
-
The F-16, purely because it's so sleek:
(http://www.aladdinsoft.com/im/aero/FightF16_001.JPG)
-
The Hawker Tempest Mark V because it was one of the fastest propeller planes ever produced (a maximum speed of 435 mph) and its a damn beautiful plane!
(http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/camm_tempest_v_500.jpg)
-
The MIG-29
http://www.flygplan.info/images/MiG-29B.jpg
http://www.flygplan.info/images/MIG-29-2.jpg
http://www.flygplan.info/images/Mig29.jpg
-
F-22
YF-23
Joint Strike Fighter
i'm too lazy to get some pics
-
Phreak: F-22 is officially desginated F/A-22 these days... :D (airplane geek right here)
-
(http://www.makintoxi.com/country/14bis.jpg)
The 14 Bis, because it was the first flying vehicle ever built.
-
It's not a jet but....
The P-61 Black Widow.
I build a model of this plane as a kid, and I've just always liked her.
(http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/p61/p61_large.jpg)
See : http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/p61/
-
The SU-27, because it looks awesome, and I'm communist.
(http://swooh.com/peon/DragonClaw/public/ingamesu1.jpg)
And you can do stuff like this...
(http://swooh.com/peon/DragonClaw/public/ingamesu2.jpg)
Oh, and a real pic... always need one of those...
(http://swooh.com/peon/DragonClaw/public/realsu.jpg)
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
F-22
YF-23
Joint Strike Fighter
i'm too lazy to get some pics
Hell yeah. Agreed. :)
(http://www.cda-intercorp.com/f22.gif)
-
There are only three real warplanes in the entire world, in my opinion.
The SuperHornet, the Tomcat, and Su-37. All others are absolutely, completely, meaningless and do not deserve the title 'warplane'.
I have spoken. ;)
-
The f-14 Tomcat ownz you.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14-deck6.jpg)
IMHO the best looking jet fighter in the Navy. :D ....Plus it's what my dad flow in...:P
*note to self: make FS model based on it*
-
Yeah I love the F22 it just looks so futuristic
sadly I heard the US government is planning to stop the F22 development project to support it's war fund.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040411%2F1549699704.htm&sc=rontz
-
MIG-35/MIG-MFI
It is said to be the true counterpart of the F22, although it's inevitably bulkier - some with a ferrocious love for Italian design will call it butt ugly -, but Russian technology has prooven to be capable of getting the job done - regardless the circumstances.
It is the first warplane to support 3D vectored thust.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mfi.htm
http://www.combatsim.com/htm/jan99/mig-mapo.htm
http://iron-eagles.tripod.com/eb_ac_files/mig144.htm
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/img001/mig144drawing.gif)
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/i42-001.jpg)
SU-35/SU-37 "Terminator"
Already a star of airshows, this may be the best inteceptor of the world as of date. The 35 had 2D vecotring like the F22, but the 37 laready has a 3D system like the MIG-MFI
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-37.htm
http://iron-eagles.tripod.com/eb_ac_files/su37.htm
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su37006.jpg)
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su37003.jpg)
-
For looks...
(http://globalspecops.com/gallery/wp800/sr71topview800.jpg)
SR-71 Blackbird.
I don't know enough about planes to have a favorite overall plane.
-
Bah... The SR-71 is cool, but its unarmed :p Unless you consider cameras armaments...
-
OK, so the Russians kick ass in the air superiority department, with the Mig and Su series, but do they have a ground attack warplane on par with the US? I mean, its all well and good, but the types of conflicts that are going to be fought in the future will most likely be against countries who have no real airforce to resist, so the name of the game I would think is bombers.
Though, even the F117 "stealth" bomber was proven not to be quite so damn stealthy :drevil: :drevil:
But as for my favourite plane, I would say the Mig-29, though I would have to reconsider that on account of those new Mig and Su planes Flaser posted.
-
we lost one F117 in combat, ever. a pot shot was inevitable.
-
And how many went down because of pilot error/equipment failure?
-
Little brother of Su-37, the test plane Su-35
http://iron-eagles.tripod.com/eb_ac_files/su35.htm
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/planes/su35_001.jpg)
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/planes/su35_002.jpg)
-
(http://www.flygplan.info/images/mustang_viggen.gif)
(http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/ftp/IMAGES/aviation/saab/viggen5.jpg)
The SAAB Viggen. It's just got that cool delta wingy sort of thing going on.
-
Right, lost one out during a pretty short conflict against, and I'll admit it, a vastly inferior (technologically) foe. IIRC, and I may not be, the F117 hasn't flown bombing runs over too many countries with any real AA power to speak of yet, so not much chance for anything to shoot it down.
Though its still a miracle compared to the Apaches. Every time they go into a warzone, they're dropping like flies. At least the US had the good sense to cancel the Commanche, though that was after something like 8 billion dollars was wasted.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
(http://globalspecops.com/gallery/wp800/sr71topview800.jpg)
SR-71 Blackbird.
:yes:
-
IIRC the SAAB has inhereted several aspects of the Typhoon - however I'm not sure wheter they were in the original Eurofighter program or not.
-
My two modern favourites:
(http://www.walyo.com/jetfighter/yf23.jpg)
(http://www.agh.edu.pl/htdocs/gifs/vehicles/aircraft/yf23.gif)
(http://www.bugimus.com/stealth/yf23_b2.jpg)
the Northrop YF23 Black Widow ( which owned the F22 on any regard save for supercruise, so they chose the raptor, go figure ), which is absolutly gorgeous
(http://www.egyptdailynews.com/My%20Webs/edailypics/berkutS37.jpg)
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/fighter/s37-i.jpg)
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/suchoj/S_32/s_32.htm
The Sukhoi S37 Berkut, coz it looks out of a sfi-fi movie :p
For fun:
(http://home.pages.at/godi/specials/s37berkut/s37wunsch.jpg)
:D
-
Originally posted by Flaser
IIRC the SAAB has inhereted several aspects of the Typhoon - however I'm not sure wheter they were in the original Eurofighter program or not.
The Vigen? Not quite, it entered production in 1971 :p
Originally posted by Thorn
Bah... The SR-71 is cool, but its unarmed :p Unless you consider cameras armaments...
Then search for YF-12, my good man :)
ot let me do it for you:
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/YF-12/Small/E-23131.jpg)
(http://www.voodoo.cz/sr71/o/aim47.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Thorn
And how many went down because of pilot error/equipment failure?
think about half a dozen.
so you don't think Iraq had decent AAA coverage?
if the 117 wasn't used (ie an f16 or 14) we'd have lost dozens of them.
-
You under rate US Navy pilots, Bob.
Not that you aren't probably right, but I gotta stand up for my Naval brethren. ;)
-
F-22 black window
ju87b-1 stuka
su-37
F-15
;)
-
well it isn't there fault if the fighter around them simply falls apart, I remember there being a string of 117s crashing due to mechanical failure in the late 90s
-
I was talking about your saying that Tomcats (which would be Navy pilots) would get shot down indiscriminately by Iraqi AAAF. The 117s are flown by Chair Farce--er Air Force--pilots.
Anyone who can't land on a moving runway in the dead of nights with darken ship in effect isn't a pilot, damnit. ;)
-
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3866/F-35B.jpg)
I rather like the Marine's New F-35B
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I was talking about your saying that Tomcats (which would be Navy pilots) would get shot down indiscriminately by Iraqi AAAF. The 117s are flown by Chair Farce--er Air Force--pilots.
Anyone who can't land on a moving runway in the dead of nights with darken ship in effect isn't a pilot, damnit. ;)
US marine pilots are pussies, they need longer runways on their carriers to be able to land :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
US marine pilots are pussies, they need longer runways on their carriers to be able to land :p
:lol: yeah, not like the british or australian pilots.
"Runways?.. BAH!, we'll just park it into the nearest pub ":p
-
Well, we make our carriers too short, so we have to be even better :p
-
JAS 39 Gripen is one of my favourites
-
Eurofighter2000/Typhoon
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/eurof_8.jpg)
I guess you're rigt Nico, it was only I wild guess on my part, since I've heard of the EF program for quite a while, unlike the SAAB counterpart.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Well, we make our carriers too short, so we have to be even better :p
IIRC you guys also use AV-8B (?) Harriers. Which are quite inferior in top speed compared to more traditional fixed engine fighters. So my F-14 Tomcat can outrun your AV-8B Harrier anyday. :P
-
Originally posted by Nico
US marine pilots are pussies, they need longer runways on their carriers to be able to land :p
Well yeah, but that's because all Marines are pussies. But that doesn't matter. All the things a Marine pilots off a carrier are VTOL. As for the long runways, see, we think ahead and make the runways on our carriers longer than we need (right now), rather than make them too short for even our current needs.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
IIRC you guys also use AV-8B (?) Harriers. Which are quite inferior in top speed compared to more traditional fixed engine fighters. So my F-14 Tomcat can outrun your AV-8B Harrier anyday. :P
No, we don't use Harriers. We use Super Etendards ( old planes ) and now Rafales ( which owns your puny F14 on every aspect ).
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/rafale-03-m.jpg)
Super Etendard in the back, Rafale M in front.
-
How cares if the interceptor can outrun a strike/air-superiority plane?
You still have to get in range to fire.
-
Vertical take off and landing? I didn't know US marine pilots had equipment capable of that - thought it was only the British Navy and their Harriers. What does the US use for VTOL?
-
cool wing shape, snazzy :D
-
Harriers, Setekh. For almost as long as the Brits have been using them. That and helicopters.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Vertical take off and landing? I didn't know US marine pilots had equipment capable of that - thought it was only the British Navy and their Harriers. What does the US use for VTOL?
Never seen True Lies? Schwartzy borrows a Marines Harrier :p
-
(http://www.avsim.com/pages/0402/cfs3/gotha229.jpg)
The Gotha 229, thats a game shot since it's a WW2 fighter and all the shots of it are black and white :)
-
Yeah, the Nazis had some super advanced stuff in the works. They were even designing a space shuttle, and that was in the early 40s. If you look at the current Space Shuttle, and the Nazi one, there is a striking resembelance.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Harriers, Setekh. For almost as long as the Brits have been using them. That and helicopters.
Never realised the US used them too. :) I guess I would have known that if I watched more Arnie. Thanks Venom. :p
-
(http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/Vampire.jpg)
(http://home.online.no/~janmeye/vtrnfly/vmp_s.jpg)
(http://www.airventure.de/riat2001/riat01vampire.jpg)
deHavilland Vampire, one of the first jet fighters in history, and a damn good looking one at that.
-
Originally posted by Aspa
deHavilland Vampire, one of the first jet fighters in history, and a damn good looking one at that.
*BZZZZZT!* you're wrong, it was this:
(http://homepage.tinet.ie/~steven/images/me262.jpg)
Messerschmitt Me 262
-
He did say "ONE OF THE first jet fighters", not "THE FIRST JET FIGHTER".
-
Originally posted by mikhael
He did say "ONE OF THE first jet fighters", not "THE FIRST JET FIGHTER".
oh:nervous:
well, add this one to the list:
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mclaydon/4-meteor.jpg)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
He did say "ONE OF THE first jet fighters", not "THE FIRST JET FIGHTER".
Anyway, he's wrong too, the Me262 isn't the first one either :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
Anyway, he's wrong too, the Me262 isn't the first one either :p
IIRC, the other earlier ones that germany produced were pure rocket planes.
so, if it isn't, than what is, may i ask? :)
-
Was the Heinkel He-178.
-
AH!, of course!
(http://www.ica-d.de/srv/chr/pic/p0481d.jpg)
-
All hail the Gloster Meteor. My own favourite rides:
(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/saab/images/Hawk%206.jpg)
My customised Hawk T1
(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/saab/images/F-14D%201.gif)
The incomparable F14-D
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
AH!, of course!
(http://www.ica-d.de/srv/chr/pic/p0481d.jpg)
She might look ridiculous, but she's still the first :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
She might look ridiculous, but she's still the first :p
the me262 was onna the first combat jets iirc, though. if i'm wrong though.. well, i'd stand corrected in that case.
and how could you all forget the venerable general dynamics F-111c?;)
(http://www.defence.gov.au/minister/sr97/f111c.jpg)
-
Forgetting it is a good idea :p
that or I unburry the monstruously old, large and ugly...
(http://matthieu.papin.free.fr/french/Aeronautique/infos/images/Mirage%20IV.jpg)
(http://matthieu.papin.free.fr/french/Aeronautique/infos/images/Mirage%20III%20et%20Mirage%20IV.jpg)
(http://airshowpics.com/pics/asp00971.jpg)
...Mirage IV, the first french nuclear bomber, as far as I know
-
Speaking of bombers....
(http://www.wallpaper.net.au/wallpaper/aviation/A10%20-%201024x768.jpg)
Big, ugly, deadly.
-
The first jet was, I believe, the XP-59 Airacomet, by Bell. The Me262 was the first operational jet, however.
But they were all developed so closely together (time-wise), it's not really worth mentioning anything but the Me262 as the first operational jet.
Anyway, it's not a jet, but I am in love with this plane (also made by Bell):
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p39-2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3866/F-35B.jpg)
I rather like the Marine's New F-35B
:lol:
Something I can actually comment on.
Ok, before I learned I was going to be a dad I spent 2 years in the Marines PLC program with an Air contract. I was a friggen killing machine and as soon as I finish college (soon) I was going to be sent off to TBS and then flight school. Too bad. :(
The Marines currently use the Harrier, and plan on upgrading to the F-35B. The F-35B does everything the Harrier does, but better. It has virtical take of and landing, some stealth, and has enough fuel to last more then 30 mins in the air (when the straight up and down landing is in use). The Marines like these planes because they can park them just about anywhere. No need for a runway.
About the SU-27 (Right number?) is sick. I have a video of it (on Janes ATF GOLD) doing a black flip. Not a lazy black flip where you go up first but a keep-you-current-speed-and-keep-going-foward-black-flip. Truely amazing. It also does the flip-right-over-(180)-and-start-going-the-other-way-with-no-stall-trick.
Originally posted by Nico
US marine pilots are pussies, they need longer runways on their carriers to be able to land :p
VTOL - Vertical take off and landings.
The Marines use smaller Navy ships to haul them around. (Well the Marine F-18 is used on the carriers...) Look up the USS Wasp.
-
You call that a knife? THIS is a KNIFE:
(http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/images/ac130_05.jpg)
(http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/images/ac130_03.jpg)
(http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/images/mc130_47.jpg)
-
Originally posted by ubermetroid
VTOL - Vertical take off and landings.
The Marines use smaller Navy ships to haul them around. (Well the Marine F-18 is used on the carriers...) Look up the USS Wasp.
When piloting normal jets, obviously, I meant ( F/A18, F14, etc ).
Oh, and you can summarize your superlong explanation of the Su27 thing this way: it's called the Cobra, and the plane doesn't go at the same speed, it's basically meant to stop it very fast. There would ber little point otherwise. Note that Even tho the Su27 was the first plane able to perform the cobra, now, tehrs can too, like the F22, for exemple. It looks cool, but isn't terribly useful otherwise :p
-
Originally posted by ubermetroid
About the SU-27 (Right number?) is sick. I have a video of it (on Janes ATF GOLD) doing a black flip. Not a lazy black flip where you go up first but a keep-you-current-speed-and-keep-going-foward-black-flip. Truely amazing. It also does the flip-right-over-(180)-and-start-going-the-other-way-with-no-stall-trick.
It's called the Kobra maneuver, and it's a real thriller at air shows. I've even seen a picture where one pilot did it only about 10 feet above the runway.
EDIT: Looks like Venom beat me to it :D
-
Originally posted by Nico
it's called the Cobra, and the plane doesn't go at the same speed, it's basically meant to stop it very fast. There would ber little point otherwise. Note that Even tho the Su27 was the first plane able to perform the cobra, now, tehrs can too, like the F22, for exemple. It looks cool, but isn't terribly useful otherwise :p
The F22 can? Hum... Learn something new every day. :D Anyone got a video of a F22 doing the Cobra?
-
Not that i know of, but I do know it has vectored thrust engines, so it could probably do it even better than the Su-27 can.
-
...and probably the Su-37 can beat both.
Still, its no use when the F22 could take it down from a distance.
The only question is wheter the MIG-MFI capable of a long range punch as the Russians claim it to do. If so, then the F22 is no longer the king of the air.
-
SU-37. Ownage in a can.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Not that i know of, but I do know it has vectored thrust engines, so it could probably do it even better than the Su-27 can.
The F22 can do it only because of the vectored thrust, actually, the shape of the plane doesn't help it, and the Su-27 will probably do it better ( the center of gravity is more on the back, something like that ).
Technically, I suppose most planes can do it, tho not at the level opf the Su27 which keeps control all along the maneuver.
-
****. How could I forget this one?
The CF-105
(http://www.airforce.forces.ca/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/arrow4.jpg)
http://www.rcjets.com/arrow/apix.jpg
http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/history/timeline/arrow-1997.jpg
"The Avro Arrow was a revolutionary jet interceptor, designed and built by the A.V. Roe Aircraft company of Canada. The Arrow was a plane of firsts, fly by wire, computer control, integral missile system and capable of MACH 2+."
http://www.avroarrow.org/
-
For shaaaaame, HLP folk.
(http://www.capitol.northgrum.com/images/prog/b2.jpg)
(http://www.edwards.af.mil/archive/2003/images/b2_sm.jpg)
(http://alianza.meristation.com/eesp/empires/US_B-17_Flying_Fortress.jpg)
(http://www.dropbears.com/b/broughsbooks/aviation/images/b17.jpg)
The B-2 Stealth Bomber and the B-17 Flying Fortress: the airplanes God gave to Moses atop the mountain.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
...and probably the Su-37 can beat both.
Still, its no use when the F22 could take it down from a distance.
The only question is wheter the MIG-MFI capable of a long range punch as the Russians claim it to do. If so, then the F22 is no longer the king of the air.
Doesn't have much to do with the plane, it's the missile that counts.
And I ask you: what last generation plane DOESN'T have long range ability?
-
How could I have forgotten this beauty? (Tu-160 strategic bomber)
(http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/btu160_p_03_l.jpg)
(http://www.modelspot.com/riat02/tu1602.JPG)
-
Sid, you mentioned a beauty, and then you seem to have linked in the wrong pics.
Originally posted by Nico
Doesn't have much to do with the plane, it's the missile that counts.
It doesn't have much to do with the LAUNCHING plane, its the TARGET plane that counts.
It really isn't about who can throw the rock farther, but who can dodge rocks better. Eventually, the person who dodges worse gets hit.
-
well, if the rock is efficient enough, it won't miss, no matter what's the target.
-
There's no such thing as a missile that will never miss. If there were, either no one would ever fight a war again, or we'd all be dead. ;)
-
I think he meant in the context of aerial dogfights. Frankly, I don't see the point in building the latest and greatest air superiority jets, its not like its going to come to war with Russia or France...
-
Mkay, Aspa beat me to it with the D.H. Vampire (I love it!!!), and the Tupolev 160 is awesome as well. My other favourites are all british bombers:
The TSR.2 strike bomber (cancelled in the prototype stage), 'cos it looks awesome: (http://www.dynavector.co.jp/airmodel/vacuum/images/tsr_600w.jpg)
The Handley Page Victor (one of the "V-force" of british nuclear bombers), cos it's weird: (http://abap.host.sk/20020828/handley_page_victor_xa923.jpg)
The Avro Vulcan (another of the "V-force, and the daddy of the RAF nuclear force), because it's ****ing huge, delta winged and noisy :D : (http://www.aerobobqat.com/AeroBob/Other_AF/Vulcan_B2_50Sq.JPG)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
There's no such thing as a missile that will never miss. If there were, either no one would ever fight a war again, or we'd all be dead. ;)
The problem can't be simplified to mere statistics of the planes we're speaking about, or the type of missile they carry.
The only thing we seem to agree upon, and which I think is likely that the Russian planes would own in "close" combat.
On the other hand when it comes to dealing long-range missile duel, the key factors of radar aspect, radar capabilities and electronic warfare come into play.
...and it's the tip of the iceberg. The very reason the 4th generation airplanes are so deadly is their integration into the information network (ala EF2000) - they can fire a missile at you and feed the data from a far away radar station.
The F22-s typically work in pairs - and it won't be the guy tagging you who's gona shoot the missile - he's far beyond missile range - it's his wingmate who's flying in stealth with his radar switched off.
This is what we know about the NATO planes...
...the question is wheter the Russian planes are capable of implementing such tactics - and we know nothing about that.
-
Well, I don't doubt they can. Really, all the latest planes can, anyway, be it the Rafale, the Typhoon, the F22 or ( I believe ) the Grippen. So why not the S-37?
-
Call me weird, but I think this is simply the coolest aircraft, ever.
(http://www.cs.uit.no/~kennethj/warbirds/gfx/newplanes/109g-6s.jpg)
It just screams "you're dead" when you look at it. Nothing fancy, just functionality.
The worlds best fighter aces flew it exclusively, so they must have done something right when designing it :)
-
The best fighter plane in the world? No doubt about it, the F-14 Tomcat. The plane has been around since the 1970's, and is still THE best intercept fighter this world has ever seen. Them Phoenix missiles it carries are amazing at their range and accuracy. It still is the most beautiful plane, just take a look.
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/Upload/tomcat11.jpg)
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/Upload/tomcat17.jpg)
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/Upload/tomcat14.jpg)
(http://www.swordsmen.org/aviat-gall/tomcat12.jpg)
-
Originally posted by adwight
The best fighter plane in the world? No doubt about it, the F-14 Tomcat.
No doubt? Talk for yourself :p
-
Suprised no one has mentioned the F-15 Eagle. A very well rounded aircraft, capable of both AtG and AtA quite effectively. Also capable of entirely vertical climbs without losing airspeed for extended periods of time. My father flew these back when he was in the airforce. One of the mainstay aircraft of the US Air Force.
(http://acielmd.cool.ne.jp/tkg21/photos/aeroplanes/F15_28.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nico
No doubt? Talk for yourself :p
Does this mean u don't like it or what? I don't really get what you mean.
-
The Su-37 is a heavily modified version of the -27.
And the only fighters with TRUE super-long range capability are the F-14 and it's Russian equivelant, which I believe is the MiG-21. The F-14 is the only US fighter capable of carrying the Pheonix long-range air-to-air missile, and the Russians have their own thingamabob which I don't know the name for.
-
See, SEE, the F-14 ownz you.
-
Originally posted by Pera
Call me weird, but I think this is simply the coolest aircraft, ever.
(http://www.cs.uit.no/~kennethj/warbirds/gfx/newplanes/109g-6s.jpg)
It just screams "you're dead" when you look at it. Nothing fancy, just functionality.
The worlds best fighter aces flew it exclusively, so they must have done something right when designing it :)
Actually in 1943 it was seriously starting to show its age compaired to the stuff being done in the US, England, and the Soviet Union. I've read a whole bunch on how the best 109's were the F series and things started to decline from there. Still a darned good fighter and yes there were some impressive aces in a 109 too!
-
I got your air power right here ;)
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/images/limage_bbmf_06.jpg)
-
And the only fighters with TRUE super-long range capability are the F-14 and it's Russian equivelant, which I believe is the MiG-21.
It's actually the MiG 31. The MiG 21 is an old, way out of date short range fighter.
-
An F-14 performed a cobra in Top Gun... I wonder if they can really do that...
-
With a US Navy pilot on the stick and his RIO backin' him up? HELL YES. ;)
Truly, I have no idea, but, you know, service loyalty and all. ;)
-
Originally posted by adwight
Does this mean u don't like it or what? I don't really get what you mean.
This means Imho it's not "the best fighter in world. No doubt about it", as you say. It's not that pretty, and as whole whole, it's a pretty average plane, like it or not :p
It's worth only for the Phoenix. How sad :p
My favourites warbirds?
have to be the Vough F4U Corsair and the Focke Wulf FW190, coz they both look like they can kick.
And the Mustang, coz that's THE classy warbird.
-
[color=66ff00]The Firefox; I think therefore you die. :D ;)
(http://www.spiralupdatenews.com/firefox.jpg)
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
(http://www.makintoxi.com/country/14bis.jpg)
The 14 Bis, because it was the first flying vehicle ever built.
Don't know if anyone's mentioned it, but that was a photo of some people watching a balloon, and the plane was added later.
The trees would have prevented takeoff, see.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Don't know if anyone's mentioned it, but that was a photo of some people watching a balloon, and the plane was added later.
The trees would have prevented takeoff, see.
photoshopping back in the day ;)
-
Back when Photoshop really was made of adobe.
-
Laugh at me.
Coolest Jet Ever:
(http://www.keme.co.uk/~supanova/colinspictures/images/fairford_1999/d025_088a.jpg)
-
Nice. Classic fighters of the 50's are clearly the way forward. For example, the RN's Sea Vixen:
(http://www.keith-hove.dsl.pipex.com/AirOnLine/a-Sea%20Vixen.JPG)
And then of course there's the immortal Hawker Hunter:
(http://www.sky-flash.com/airshows/cottesmore2001/pictures/74.jpg)
-
See what red-bull does to ya?.. it really does give you wings... jet-propelled ones :P
-
Lavi
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/lavi5.jpg)
(http://www.samoloty.amconex.pl/pic/lavi-002.jpg)
the 2 on the sides
(http://www.samoloty.amconex.pl/pic/lavi-001.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/lavi6.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/lavi2.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/lavi.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/lavi4.jpg)
-
I'll let the pictures speak for themselves:
(http://www.concordesst.com/pictures/4airfrance.jpg)
(http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/10/-big/Concorde.jpg)
(http://sobering.terracom.net/eaa98/Concorde/Concorde_Landing4_h.jpeg)
(http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/highlift/images/Concorde.jpg)
I always wanted to fly in it, and then the bastards take it out of service before I get a chance :(
-
About the possible cancellation of the F/A-22...wouldn't that be a waste at this stage for two reasons:
1) Billions have already been spent and production models are in the works.
2) There is no viable replacement for the F-15C which is no longer the best fighter in the world. I doubt the USAAF is comfortable with that thought....the Su-30MK export version of the Su-27 can compete with the Eagle and likely win (in a straight comparison - pilot makes ALL the difference of course but the best trained pilot a second best fighter isn't ideal). The Gripen, the Typhoon, and Rafael are all excellent fighters I know the USAAF doesn't like being considered second, third, or fourth best by having an older generation fighter...even if its avionics are the best in the industry and even if its simply a missile platform...capability of that missile platform is still extremely important.
-
I don't see it happening, IceFire. The 15 is aging, and not gracefully and there's nothing waiting in the wings if they cancel the 22.
On the other hand, as has been pointed out in another thread, the military has shown a willingness to continue with the Apache, despite its problems, and cancel the Comanche, in favor of an as yet undetermined future rotor wing project. Admittedly, that's an Army decision, not Air Force, but there might be similar pressures at work within the Pentagon.
-
That Lavi looks pretty cool.
Blinged-up F16.
-
The Su-35 and later 37 started with such developments un the 27.
I wonder if they have other developments in store.
I think Boing has something in store about the supersonic jetliner - IIRC the lack of apropiate materials were the reason they canned their version.
Now with the new composites, they may try something.
-
I was watching something this afternoon about US and Russian experiments in the 50s with nuclear-powered aircraft.
Both sides thought that the other had an operational aircraft, and the Russians, after spending years trying to find a way to balance weight, reactor shielding, thrust and god knows what else, eventually achieved an operational plane by not shielding the reactor at all. Nice.
Of the 5 crews, 3 men survived.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
That Lavi looks pretty cool.
Blinged-up F16.
That's exactly waht it is :)
The Isreali make their planes from already existing ones, the Lavi is from the F16, the C7 was from the MirageIII, etc.
I thought the Lavi was cancelled, tho...
-
(http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/4295/image/F-16SFW_1.jpg)
ph34r
-
(http://freespace.kicks-ass.net/_images/F181.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nico
That's exactly waht it is :)
The Isreali make their planes from already existing ones, the Lavi is from the F16, the C7 was from the MirageIII, etc.
I thought the Lavi was cancelled, tho...
your right and wrong. the lavi was cancled only 3 prototypes were ever made.
one is still used every so often as a trainer. another sits in the air force museum in the south.
you were also right about the Isreali make alot of things from already existing ones because of strained budgets however. you were wrong about the Lavi... the lavi was made slightly before the F-16 in fact the story goes that the desigens were sent to the states for funding (not complete desgines) they were rejected however a short time later the F-16 was unvieled... uncannily simliar as petrarch already observed. (I aint saying nothing ;)) it still had technology that to this day has only recently been incorperated I hear in the F-22's the targeting system integrated and direct by the pilots eyes/eye.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I don't see it happening, IceFire. The 15 is aging, and not gracefully and there's nothing waiting in the wings if they cancel the 22.
On the other hand, as has been pointed out in another thread, the military has shown a willingness to continue with the Apache, despite its problems, and cancel the Comanche, in favor of an as yet undetermined future rotor wing project. Admittedly, that's an Army decision, not Air Force, but there might be similar pressures at work within the Pentagon.
Yeah this is something I was thinking about as well.
I guess the thing is that the Apache is still probably the best at what it does...and the Commanche was in some ways supposed to be above and beyond what was possible there and then some.
I'll betcha that the design for an Apache replacement will still bear some resemblance to the Commanche. They wouldn't throw all of the R&D away...I couldn't see that happening.
Flaser: Yes the Su-27 was the basis for the Su-30, the Su-33, the 34, 35 and 37. I probably missed some others as well. Of course the base Su-27 airframe was designed after the F-15 by a fairly long shot and its quite a bit more advanced aerodynamically. If the Su-37 goes ahead in any capacity it'll be more than an equal to the latest block upgrade to the F-15C and more in line with the abilities of the Eurofighter.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Flaser: Yes the Su-27 was the basis for the Su-30, the Su-33, the 34, 35 and 37. I probably missed some others as well. Of course the base Su-27 airframe was designed after the F-15 by a fairly long shot and its quite a bit more advanced aerodynamically. If the Su-37 goes ahead in any capacity it'll be more than an equal to the latest block upgrade to the F-15C and more in line with the abilities of the Eurofighter.
Which still does not matter, except in the air shows. US posesses the best long-range weaponry, targeting systems and with F/A-22, the best stealth. Russia is lagging behind, because their military economy is practically in ruins, they have only ~200 frontline combat aircrafts operational and most of their R&D is spent on upgrading the export Suhoi models. I WUV the Russian design, but their combat abilities are so far not up-to-date.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
I guess the thing is that the Apache is still probably the best at what it does..
yeah: being shot down :p
About the Typhoon: one should note it doesn't belong to the super agile fighter family, like the grippen or the F22. It's more a pack of cool gadgets. Let's not forget the whole project has been toned down a lot since the first stages ( When it changed from EFA -which was kick-ass- to EF2000, because of severe budget cuts, and Spain and Italy dragging behind. That's when France decided to quit the project and make the Rafale instead, btw )
Splinter:
The first F16 prototype flew in 1974, the first series plane flew in 1976. The Lavi project was initiated in 1980, the first prototype flew some 6 years later, in 1986, and the project was cancelled in 1987 ( I always have my warplane bible handy, that can help :p ), check your sources, you must have misread something :)
-
Originally posted by Nico
yeah: being shot down :p
About the Typhoon: one should note it doesn't belong to the super agile fighter family, like the grippen or the F22. It's more a pack of cool gadgets. Let's not forget the whole project has been toned down a lot since the first stages ( When it changed from EFA -which was kick-ass- to EF2000, because of severe budget cuts, and Spain and Italy dragging behind. That's when France decided to quit the project and make the Rafale instead, btw )
Splinter:
The first F16 prototype flew in 1974, the first series plane flew in 1976. The Lavi project was initiated in 1980, the first prototype flew some 6 years later, in 1986, and the project was cancelled in 1987 ( I always have my warplane bible handy, that can help :p ), check your sources, you must have misread something :)
huh yeah musta gotten it all mixed around after a number of "broekn telephone" stories about it (second and third hand) however the plans were sent in for funding and rejected and somthing was unviled shortly thereafter that was alike in whole or in a part to it. i remmber that much at least. somwhere along the way I guess I heard so many people say it looked like the F-16 that I jsut incorperated that into my head to be what was duplicated. :nervous:
-
*points at name*
(http://www.spitcrazy.com/corsair.jpg)
I know it's not a jet but...need I say more?
Other than the Corsair...Tomcats own.
The Tu-26 Backfire is a nasty bomber. Damn good at what it does. Gets in and out at high speeds.
And A-10 Warthogs just destroy everything. Tanks don't stand a chance.
-
(http://users.tinyworld.co.uk/mrigby/a4.jpg)
The A-4. Oddly cool, not to mention that it sent one of the best Clancy books ever in motion (think: Sum of All Fears).
(http://www.lowapproach.com/Images/F117.jpg)
And it seems ya almost forgot the F117.
-
Originally posted by Thorn
Bah... The SR-71 is cool, but its unarmed :p Unless you consider cameras armaments...
They actually considered a "gravity bomb" sort of thing at one point. The idea was basically that if you dropped a large metal weight from a plane going at mach 3, it would penetrate through just about anything , and probably cause a bit of a crater as well :p (like a man-made meteorite, I suppose)
-
A4s are pretty cool, but they always seem to have a cancer, either in that second cockpit shown there, or the dorsal hump that later models had.
Bring back the early versions!
-
Originally posted by Janos
Which still does not matter, except in the air shows. US posesses the best long-range weaponry, targeting systems and with F/A-22, the best stealth. Russia is lagging behind, because their military economy is practically in ruins, they have only ~200 frontline combat aircrafts operational and most of their R&D is spent on upgrading the export Suhoi models. I WUV the Russian design, but their combat abilities are so far not up-to-date.
Well as far as a I know the R-77 is potentially (I guess nobody really knows) the best medium to long range missile there is. I've read and been told quite a bit about the AIM-120 and some of the problems with performance that it has right now. In terms of radar, the Russian designs aren't far behind and some are likely just as capable as current US designs (in the latest block F-15C).
Typically the US radar and the whole array is better integrated and there is a bit less workload for the pilot in that things are automated. Few of the Russian designs have MFD's so there are still alot of guages and single use displays.
The other thing is that at present, at least until the AIM-9X is fully equipped on US warplanes, the R-73 Archer is probably the most advanced short range missile there is. The pilot uses a targeting system on his helmet to designate targets and the missile itself has thrust vectoring so you can hit targets something like 30 degrees off axis.
I've learned quite a bit in the last couple of years and it leads me to believe that what the Russians can do is essentially equal to what the Americans can do. The design philosophy is different...you have alot of redundancy and older tried and true methods (most of their designs don't have fly-by-wire yet) for making things work but its certainly no less effective in what I've read.
And yes the F/A-22 and the stealth technology that is in that fighter is very impressive but my whole point is that if the F/A-22 is cancelled then there is no F-15C replacement and therefore the dominance of US fighter planes is significantly reduced by new generation of fighters from Russian manufacturers and from Europe. Obviously pilot training in the US is very good and they do have some of the best pilots around (although Canadian pilots have ranked number one in a number of excercises :D) so you boost your advantage and thats why the F-15 has a 101 to 0 kill to combat loss ratio....but that is diminished if your opponent has better jets and better or equal weapons. An F-15 in a close in fight is not going to be as good as a Su-27 and inevitably you are going to find yourself in a close in fight.
And I was under the distinct impression that the EF2000 is super manuverable because of 1) Unstable design 2) Thurst vectoring 3) Forward canard planes.
-
All the jets ahve unstable design ;)
The Typhoon has no thrust vectoring anyway.
-
Man I want to see more cool planes!
-
....MUST .... POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AH!
Being offline for 2 weeks does funny things to you.
B1 Lancer. Goes supersonic at sea level and drops more bombs than you grandmother.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/454981/M/
-
Originally posted by beatspete
....MUST .... POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AH!
Being offline for 2 weeks does funny things to you.
B1 Lancer. Goes supersonic at sea level and drops more bombs than you grandmother.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/454981/M/
;)
(http://www.willworkforflooz.com/images/B52.jpg)
and
(http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b29-2.jpg)
(http://www.specialforces.net/airforce/ac130_01.jpg)
-
Thats my second favorite Jet Turnsky. :)
B-52 is a cool bomber
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
(http://www.makintoxi.com/country/14bis.jpg)
The 14 Bis, because it was the first flying vehicle ever built.
Thats debatable.
Does it really count if it cant be controlled anyways? Flight is controlable. Skydiving isn't flight, it's just a fall. That hunk was just a uncontrolable lift jumper thing.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Vertical take off and landing? I didn't know US marine pilots had equipment capable of that - thought it was only the British Navy and their Harriers. What does the US use for VTOL?
Ground support.
Pussies. Hah! Marines are pussies? Hahaha. :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by Nico
All the jets ahve unstable design ;)
The Typhoon has no thrust vectoring anyway.
Ahh you are right...the Typhoon has no thrust vectoring. I've read that it may be an upgrade to the system later on.
Some jets are significantly more unstable than others. The F-16 for instance was designed specifically to be unstable and to take advantage of that by using fly-by-wire as well as computer control to keep the aircraft stable. Translates into superior manuverability and more edge in the flight envelope.
The Rafael was designed the same way.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
(http://www.willworkforflooz.com/images/B52.jpg)
Under normal circumstances, I'd find that funny. But the fact that whoever did that doesn't even know how to spell destroys any humor what-so-ever.
What is this world coming to?
-
Originally posted by IceFire
The Rafael was designed the same way.
Rafale. Rafael is my dickheaded neighbour :p
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Under normal circumstances, I'd find that funny. But the fact that whoever did that doesn't even know how to spell destroys any humor what-so-ever.
What is this world coming to?
actually, it was the only decent payload shot of the b52 i could find.
-
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1043804574838_2003/02/01/02HORNET,0.jpg)
See that? That be a dangerous aircraft right there.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1043804574838_2003/02/01/02HORNET,0.jpg)
See that? That be a dangerous aircraft right there.
in the right hands, of course;)
-
Hence the carefully selected choice of image :nod:
-
LOL I like the fact the refuel hose makes him look like he's got a lance fitted to the front of the plane ;)
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
The f-14 Tomcat ownz you.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14-deck6.jpg)
IMHO the best looking jet fighter in the Navy. :D ....Plus it's what my dad flow in...:P
*note to self: make FS model based on it*
I SECOND THAT! Too bad Grumman abandoned the Super Tomcat project....
Apart from the F-14, the A-10 Thunderbolt 2 and the B-1B Lancer are my favorites.