Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jr2 on November 09, 2007, 07:43:40 pm
-
Sorry... but I'm an SR-71 fanboi. I will now infect you with my disease. Don't worry, it's (mostly) painless.
Video on MetaCafe (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/588016/sr_71_blackbird/) (play in full-screen if you can).
Any similar videos on this aircraft, or others that are close to your heart? Share them here. :nod:
Ah, yes, I'll drop a resource here for you too: http://sonicbomb.com
-
I guess this is where I step in. :)
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RC-135_Rivet_Joint.jpg) is my baby. The Boeing RC-135W Rivet Joint, the aircraft I'll more than likely be flying on when I finally graduate from technical training. Thing's almost fifty years old and still flying, and has enough radio and sensor equipment to cause radiation poisoning within 10-15 seconds exposure to the nose cone. Awesome, no? :D
Though if you want to talk pure awesome in terms of "this will kill you", I point to the AC-130. You have no idea how fun it is watching those 105mm and 40mm guns do their thing.
-
Though if you want to talk pure awesome in terms of "this will kill you", I point to the AC-130. You have no idea how fun it is watching those 105mm and 40mm guns do their thing.
The SR-71 has no weapons; it moves too fast! :lol:
But, here's an AC-130 vid: (I couldn't find any of the RC-135W... will look some more.)
http://www.sonicbomb.com/v1.php?vid=military/AC130.wmv&id=13&ttitle=AC130
-
Now THIS... is an *airplane*.. or is it more?
It's an airplane, as far as I can see.
-
Though if you want to talk pure awesome in terms of "this will kill you", I point to the AC-130. You have no idea how fun it is watching those 105mm and 40mm guns do their thing.
The SR-71 has no weapons; it moves too fast! :lol:
But, here's an AC-130 vid: (I couldn't find any of the RC-135W... will look some more.)
http://www.sonicbomb.com/v1.php?vid=military/AC130.wmv&id=13&ttitle=AC130
If you ever get to see Transformers, it does a very nice job of making the AC-130 (in fact, the entire Air Force in general) look good.
I doubt you'd find anything of the Rivet Joint; it does nothing more exciting than fly around and spy on people. The only spy aircraft worth getting a look at are the AWACS (E-3 Sentry), SR-71, U-2, or the Combat Sent (based off of the RC-135 model, except that it purposely tries to set off hostile AAA; really cool).
-
(http://www.nukelol.com/temphost/bbimgs/1193382139091.jpg)
-
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/115274/eurofighter_typhoon/
eats your thunderbolt real fast :)
-
Now this looks cool
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Boeing-X36-InFlight.jpg)
-
(http://www.nukelol.com/lolwut/1193382139091.jpg)
ditto
-
Sexy lines say who?
(http://www.largescaleplanes.com/reviews/Trumpeter/mig3/fotobiancr.jpg)
Big propeller says what?
(http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/f4u-01.jpg)
Brute force say how?
(http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/fa-18e.jpg)
-
Gotta go with the A-10 >:]
-
Yup, I'll go along with the thunderbolt...
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Fighters/ThunderboltBankingMinus15.jpg)
Oppps wrong one :P
-
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1178509/2/istockphoto_1178509_paper_airplane.jpg)
Pure Ownage
-
I returned here just to post in this thread :p
F-14 Tomcat
(http://richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Oceana2005/Tomcats/GreyF14FastPass10oClock.jpg)
F-15 Eagle
(http://www.afterburnerseminars.com/resource/downloads/hi_res/F15.jpg)
F-16 Fighting Falcon
(http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f-16-4.jpg)
Typhoon
(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_Eurofighter_lg.jpg)
Su-27 Flanker
(http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/lm.broers/picswar1/su27.jpg)
EDIT: I almost forgot...
F-104 Starfighter
(http://web.tiscalinet.it/F104-Starfighter/f104front.jpg)
-
If you ever get to see Transformers, it does a very nice job of making the AC-130 (in fact, the entire Air Force in general) look good.
Yeah, but it makes the A-10 look like a wuss. 30mm DU round FTW!
My two most beloved planes:
(http://www.nukelol.com/lolwut/1193382139091.jpg)
F-14 Tomcat
(http://richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Oceana2005/Tomcats/GreyF14FastPass10oClock.jpg)
I piddy da f00 who doesn't like them!
-
Sigh...
(http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk/supermarine/spitfireI-III/spitfire.jpg)
:p
-
i like the spitfire too, id like it more if it had a 30mm gatling gun :D
-
Tomcats are nice n all but hornets are better :) My mom actually worked on circuit boards for hornets back in the day
-
Tomcats are nice n all but hornets are better :) My mom actually worked on circuit boards for hornets back in the day
NEVER. Tomcats rule...RULE! :drevil:
If only the Super Tomcat saw the light of day, then you'd see....
-
Tomcats are nice n all but hornets are better :) My mom actually worked on circuit boards for hornets back in the day
NEVER. Tomcats rule...RULE! :drevil:
If only the Super Tomcat saw the light of day, then you'd see....
Wow, I can't believe I didn't remember to throw the Tomcat into mine.
-
The A-10 Warthog will live forever. It has a freaking amazing history as well.
-
And airplane with a machinegun that can rip through several tanks at once is worth the scant $10 million the A-10 is woth
-
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/115274/eurofighter_typhoon/
eats your thunderbolt real fast :)
The A-10 isn't primarily an air-to-air superiority craft. :rolleyes: That said, if it's underestimated, the payback will be total. The A-10 has never had a chance to prove itself against a fighter in the sky (perhaps just after takeoff, but that wouldn't count). It does have 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders for self-defense, as well as the Gatling, ofc. But, since its role isn't air-to-air, it is covered by a CAP of F-15s, 16s, or 18s (prolly used to also include 14s) all the time... so any enemy aircraft would have to sneak past those to challenge the A-10 (and feel its wrath! ;7 ).
I like the SR-71.... but it has no weapons, it's too fast. :( Since the SR-71 meets all of my speed requirements, I don't need speed to like the A-10, which has enough weapon power for both. :lol: Now if they could figure out those airborne lasers.... :D
-
(http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4556/motivator828273at7.jpg)
-
Sigh...
(http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk/supermarine/spitfireI-III/spitfire.jpg)
:p
(http://www.auroraartcompany.com/WARBIRDS%20PAGE/1.jpg)
(http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/macchi/mc205_mm92289.jpg)
(http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/prima/francesco_baracca_spadvii.jpg)
(http://www.t4a.ru/UserFiles/autowp_ru_ferrari_logo_1.jpg)
:p :p :p
-
(http://www.funny-potato.com/images/planes/jet.jpg)
-
Meh, n00b :P
-
Tomcats are nice n all but hornets are better :) My mom actually worked on circuit boards for hornets back in the day
NEVER. Tomcats rule...RULE! :drevil:
If only the Super Tomcat saw the light of day, then you'd see....
Yup. The Tomcats rule just as much as any other disused 40 year old aircraft.
-
Sorry... but I'm an SR-71 fanboi. I will now infect you with my disease. Don't worry, it's (mostly) painless.
You don't have much a chance, considering I actually saw in SR-71 up close and personal, one that had been given to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. They, like most museums, don't have room to display all their stuff. The Smithsonian's stuff is rather bigger than others, though, and flies a lot of the time, so they have a hanger out by BWI (I think, it was a long time ago), with a good deal of misc. aircraft bits and some whole planes.
A friend of a friend's parent (I was perhaps 10 at the time) was a curator there and helped with restoration work, and got a few of us wee little munchkins a chance to visit. They had an SR-71 in mint condition there, which was probably the most intact of the stuff in the hanger. You could walk up to it, under it, touch it. The cockpit was a mess, a lot of the stuff was still classified back then (this would have been early 1990s) and had been torn out, but you could get down under it and stare into the recon camera lenses. I remember that very clearly.
The star of the place for me was a FW-190D partially restored, and they also had a B-24 that was in pieces, a F-5E Tiger II that was in need of major work to the engine nacelles and tail, a skeletal MiG-17, an engine from an ME-262, a TBM-1 Avenger they had just gotten that had been submerged in the Salton Sea for too long, and they were working on a replica A6M2 Zero (not sure of the specific model).
-
A little help: each of the Blackbird's engines produce more power than all four of the Queen Mary's engines combined. :pimp:
-
Back on topic, I have always loved the SR-71. Especially the flyable version in Ace Combat 3 ;7
-
Tomcats are nice n all but hornets are better :) My mom actually worked on circuit boards for hornets back in the day
NEVER. Tomcats rule...RULE! :drevil:
If only the Super Tomcat saw the light of day, then you'd see....
Yup. The Tomcats rule just as much as any other disused 40 year old aircraft.
Tomcats actually are much better air-superiority aircraft than the even the Super Hornet - they're faster, can carry longer-ranged missiles, and have longer legs. They were retired because they were really good at air superiority, but only so so at ground attack. The Super Hornet, however, is good at both, and while not excellent at one like the Tomact was, it's mult-imission capability and it's much more modern electronics suite (the Tomcat, despite all efforts to modernize it, was still lagging behind modern aircraft) made the Hornet the best choice for the Navy's current plans. That and the Tomcat takes up a LOT of room on the carrier deck, compared to the Hornet, and it makes more sense logistically to only have to supply one type of aircraft, instead of two whose jobs overlap.
The Tomcat still is arguably more high-performance, though.
-
Tomcats actually are much better air-superiority aircraft than the even the Super Hornet - they're faster, can carry longer-ranged missiles, and have longer legs. They were retired because they were really good at air superiority, but only so so at ground attack. The Super Hornet, however, is good at both, and while not excellent at one like the Tomact was, it's mult-imission capability and it's much more modern electronics suite (the Tomcat, despite all efforts to modernize it, was still lagging behind modern aircraft) made the Hornet the best choice for the Navy's current plans. That and the Tomcat takes up a LOT of room on the carrier deck, compared to the Hornet, and it makes more sense logistically to only have to supply one type of aircraft, instead of two whose jobs overlap.
Hmm, I was under the impression the choice to retire the Tomcat was made because it was a total ***** to keep airborne. Extremely high maintenance plus an aging airframe equals retirement. Can't be helped.
-
Tomcats were retired because they were really good at air superiority, but only so so at ground attack.
Actually, with an upgrade of the early '90s, Tomcats became also good planes for air-to-ground missions. Like Mefustae said, they were very expensive in maintenance costs.
-
I'd like to point out that these are all aeroplanes, none are airplanes! :P
-
I'd like to point out that these are all aeroplanes, none are airplanes! :P
To connect two threads...
"Oh, an aeroplane! My, my, we are grand aren't we? Oh, no more buttered scones for me maitre, I'm off to play the grand piano! Pardon me while I fly my aeroplane!"
-
Tomcats were retired because they were really good at air superiority, but only so so at ground attack.
Actually, with an upgrade of the early '90s, Tomcats became also good planes for air-to-ground missions. Like Mefustae said, they were very expensive in maintenance costs.
I forgot to mention that, but yea, the Tomcats were also maintenance whores. But even with the Bombcat upgrade, they still were simply so-so bombers, IIRC.
-
Tomcats were retired because they were really good at air superiority, but only so so at ground attack.
Actually, with an upgrade of the early '90s, Tomcats became also good planes for air-to-ground missions. Like Mefustae said, they were very expensive in maintenance costs.
The modls were destroyed. TI's was government and corporte policy that.
Dick (the f***) Cheny was responsible for that. Without the original molds, it becam very costly to mantain them. It was sabotage. the new tomcat would kick the super hornets arse any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
-
I forgot to mention that, but yea, the Tomcats were also maintenance whores. But even with the Bombcat upgrade, they still were simply so-so bombers, IIRC.
So-so bombers like the F-15E?
-
I forgot to mention that, but yea, the Tomcats were also maintenance whores. But even with the Bombcat upgrade, they still were simply so-so bombers, IIRC.
So-so bombers like the F-15E?
The F-15E is not much a "so-so" bomber... it offers great performances and paylod, and also very good air-to-air capabilities inherited from the air superiority variant.
-
The design isn't that great, it looks like Ciccio Bastardo's plane(that fat Scottish guy from Austin Powers :lol:).
-
So-so bombers like the F-15E?
The Tomcat-21 would have outperformed the F-15E in every category, not always by much, but it would have.
-
(http://www.plaaf.net/Articleworld/UploadFiles/200503/2005331171321404.jpg)
I just had to include this one because, well, it looks cool. I can't look at it without thinking it looks kind of Kilrathi (if it were assymetrical, I would be convinced). :)
-
It does look cool. And I did say to post about other planes close to your... err, heart, w/e. So, c'mon, people!! Let's have M04R planez!
-
(http://www.nukelol.com/temphost/bbimgs/B-52-10.jpg)
Longevity.
-
The BUFF does have that.
-
I like the 52's ability to crab sideways on a runway... XD
-
So does just about any other aircraft in the USAF. Hooray for an airfleet whose planes are on average 30 years old!
-
*smacks nuclear1* It's a feature!
They are designed to crab sideways so they can take off without dragging the wheels sideways during strong crosswinds... what's your point?
-
Actually I was making a reference to longevity, but you just got your post in while I was typing mine.
Same thing applies with the crab walking aircraft though. :p
-
(http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal213/images/X29_1.jpg)
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/x-31-EC94-42478-17.jpg)
-
Though if you want to talk pure awesome in terms of "this will kill you", I point to the AC-130. You have no idea how fun it is watching those 105mm and 40mm guns do their thing.
The SR-71 has no weapons; it moves too fast! :lol:
But, here's an AC-130 vid: (I couldn't find any of the RC-135W... will look some more.)
http://www.sonicbomb.com/v1.php?vid=military/AC130.wmv&id=13&ttitle=AC130
Wow...
You could see the dudes blasting apart into little chunks that vid.
-
Sorry... but I'm an SR-71 fanboi. I will now infect you with my disease. Don't worry, it's (mostly) painless.
Video on MetaCafe (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/588016/sr_71_blackbird/) (play in full-screen if you can).
AWESOME video man, thanks for sharing :)
i've always been a sr71 fan myself :)
-
(http://www.plaaf.net/Articleworld/UploadFiles/200503/2005331171321404.jpg)
I just had to include this one because, well, it looks cool. I can't look at it without thinking it looks kind of Kilrathi (if it were assymetrical, I would be convinced). :)
I've always prefered the look of Ruskie stuff over American hardware.
(http://www.diseno-art.com/images/tupolew_Tu95-142_Bear.jpg)
(http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/mki_code_01_showing_its_underwing_load___photo_sukhoi_.jpg)
(http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/mig25.jpg)
or there's the British V Bombers:
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/allen.conquest/gallery/vulcan1.jpg)
I really need to see one of these in the metal
(http://static.flickr.com/52/133024183_1777f72326_o.jpg)
(http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/vickers%20valient/Valient%20B(PR)1%20turning%20finals.jpg)
ugly = good
-
How could I forget the mighty...
AMX!
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd9/DDySkO/amxdontfly.jpg)
:lol:
-
And how can we forget your sarcasm? :lol:
-
(http://static.flickr.com/52/133024183_1777f72326_o.jpg)
whit is that? that things butt ugly yet very interesting looking and somewhat cool. im assuming those bulbous growths on its wings are radar equipment. i need more info on this beast.
-
Handley-Page Victor. Those wing pods are probably refuelling tanks as it was retired from boming duties and used as a mid-air refuelling tanker:-
(http://www.aeroplaneart.com.au/Images/JSJ_PC_Handley_Page_Victor_K_Mk_2.jpg)