NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I'm sleepy, but avoiding sleep, so I thought I would post a random thread.

What is your favorite aircraft?

Why?

I will make a poll if a fair number of people post, giving me a good starting place.

Also, give reasons why, and if you want to put additional ones(#2, #3, etc), feel free.

http://www.limalima.com/art/A-10%20Warthog.jpg

The A-10 Warthog.

Always like ground-support aircraft, the whole drama from Top Gun and air jockeys/knights dueling each other never struck me as fascinating. And the Warthog is good at what it does.

Plus, it's unique and good looking. Kid's got hella style.

De Havilland Sea Vixen.

I like the idea of a twin tail boom swept wing jet. It's a pity they never produced the supersonic variant.

Anyway, it stopped Iraq from invading kuwait.

The Spitfire, for the sheer grace & beauty of it. Not forgetting it was as good as, or better than, it's peers.

Stuka

The Spitfire, for the sheer grace & beauty of it. Not forgetting it was as good as, or better than, it's peers.

Can't argue with that. Here's a Spitfire powered by a Rolls-Royce Griffon.

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/~jgaffney/aviation/images/ww2/spitfire.jpg

nice target for a stuka ;)

close call, either the EA-6B Prowler. or the A-10.
I'm really torn between being able to shut down virtually all electronic communications in an average country, or the "avenger" cannon

ME-109 - It's just damn cool.

http://www.zap16.com/images/ME_109.jpg

Eurofighter. The thing just looks so sharp (and it's part German, just like me).:D

http://www2.arnes.si/~ttomsi5/eurofighter-2.jpg

nice target for a stuka ;)

Yes, especially since the Stuka is armed to the teeth with guns. :p

The new Rafale looks pretty slick
http://aeronautics.ru/archive/plasma/rafale_001.jpg
And they're building a sci-fi remote control drone plane as well.

The new Rafale looks just like the old Rafale!

Well, that's a good thing, actually, because the old Rafale looks just like the new Rafale, which is damn good.

>.>

The new Rafale looks just like the old Rafale!
It's the internals I guess...

Anyways, this is the next generation (this is only a computer pic)
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/documents/media/D.jpg

And as far as helicopters go, http://www.eurocopter.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=30

It's the internals I guess...

Anyways, this is the next generation (this is only a computer pic)
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/documents/media/D.jpg

Looks like a B-2.

Looks like a B-2.
Apparently these are remote control fighter-bombers though...

Apparently these are remote control fighter-bombers though...I suppose that explains why the cockpit's been replaced with an intake... :p

I forgot about the BV 141. A german WWII ground attack plane. It's the only asymetric to enter production. IIRC The luftwaffe didn't care for it because they were worried that people would laugh at it, so not many were built.

Still, despite its odd looks it had excellent flying characteristics and was exceptionally efficient. Ahead of its time in many respects.

http://texasbestgrok.mu.nu/images/bv_141.jpg

The SR-71 Blackbird.

Coolest looking plane. ever.

Lockheed build that one?

The SR-71 Blackbird.

Coolest looking plane. ever.

Lockheed build that one?

Indeed. Kelly Johnson's magnificent octopus.

Warplanes of all times- the Russian IL2 Shturmovik, closely followed by the Spitfire.

The Shturmovik was an absolute marvel. An ideal World war II ground attack aicraft. Fully armored to withstand anti-aircraft fire, armed to the teeth and the world's first rocket carrying warplane. It was to the aircrafts of its time what the German Tiger or the Russian JS II were to the tanks.

Modern warplanes? The Lavi and the F15I "Raam" (Israeli upgrade of the F15)

The Lavi, if it wasn't shut down under American pressure, would have given both the F16 and the Eurofighter a run for their money- if they would even see it coming. Think a smaller, lighter, better flying and much more more robust F16 on the outside that is several times more software rich on the inside, and a radar that is second to no one. The only thing it was somewhat lacking was speed- but in modern air combat excessive speed is no longer needed, especially for defense of a country as small as Israel is.

The F15 ... Gotta love a jet that can withstand an air to air missile and still stay in the air, or land even with one of its wings completely torn off. Not to mention that it was the F15 that blew away the MiG myth- the world was absolutely convinced in the Russian Mig25 "Foxbat" superiority over any Western warplane until the Syrian "Foxbats" began dropping like flies every time they faced an Israeli F15.

The A-10 Warthog...

...it's unique and good looking.

GOOD LOOKING? its hideous!

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4893/spitfire9qs.th.jpg (http://img407.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spitfire9qs.jpg)

now *thats* good looking.

My favorite:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/F22.jpg

I'd have to say my favorite is an old Navy fighter, about to be retired. The good old F-14 Tomcat. And before any one makes the obvious accusation, I was a fan well before I ever saw Top Gun.

Oh god this is so hard i can never actually pin it down...
Anyway top modern planes:
Avro Vulcan (its, big, its bad and suprisingly agile, i must remeber to make my donation to the Vulcan to the Sky fund)
SPECAT Jaguar (who cares about super uber raptors and JSFs? the jaguar is a awesome little plane and even the chisel nosed Gr3 is ncie looking)
Sea Harrier FA-2 (want to make F-15 pilots cringe in fear? get one of these, plus its harrier! nuf said...)
OV-10 Bronco (ugly as sin but so awesome every other way)
Shorts Belfast (the forgotten giant).
English Electric Lightning(super performance and oddly beautiful looks)

WW2:
Hurricane (i always preffered it over the SPitfire, it had a much meaner look to it)

Well, I'm sleepy, but avoiding sleep, so I thought I would post a random thread.

What is your favorite aircraft?

Why?

I will make a poll if a fair number of people post, giving me a good starting place.

Also, give reasons why, and if you want to put additional ones(#2, #3, etc), feel free.
Brewster Buffalo would get the award for piece of shit.

I would say the Spitfire.

Mosquito was pretty cool too though.

I said Spitfire because it was the darling boy of the Battle of Britain.
Many say the Hurricane was overlooked.

Personally I like:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/Zero.jpg
The Mitsubishi A6M Zero-Sen

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enola-gay.jpg
The Boeing B-29 Superfortress

And just because
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/F14.jpg
The Grumman F-14 Tomcat

Mosquito was pretty cool too though.

I said Spitfire because it was the darling boy of the Battle of Britain.
Many say the Hurricane was overlooked.

The hurricane accounted for the vast majority of kills during the battle of britain. There just weren't enough spitfires in fighter command.

Here's another good fighter from WWII. The Kawasaki K61. Japan's finest fighter of the war.

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/K61.htm

Modern Day: I'm stuck between the A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog wasn't the official designation of the model) and the F-22.

Cold-War-Era: SR-71 Blackbird, hands down.

WWII: P-38 Lightning (I seem to have something for storm-related aircraft)

WWI: They were all pretty nifty looking (except the plethora with the squared-off noses).

WW1 it has to be the Albatross, just so sleek... Plus Mannfred flew it for most of the war, forget the Dr1, this is where it was at.

http://www.1stoppostershop.com/products/Impact/Planes/im_WW1AlbatrossD3.jpg

WW2, i'd say the Mosquito. Outpacing fighters? Yes please! (not to mention they wanted to use the bouncing bomb in it...)

http://www.spitcrazy.com/mosquito-lr.jpg

Best aircraft that never was... The TSR2.

http://www.f-111.net/images/tsr2-F-111.jpg

And, of course, my favourite modern fighter...

The Saab Grippen.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Gripen.750pix.jpg

Does the Bell X-1 count?

Nice target for a stuka ;)


You are aware that the stuka was a pathetic dogfighter? The spitfire would chew it up and spit it out. Slow, unmaneuvrable.... there was a reason the germans sent Me109s and not stukas to shoot down the RAF. It was good if the enemy had no aircraft to shoot it down with. Not to mention it had a fixed chassis, meaning it couldn't pull up its landing gear. dogfighting would've put it under major strain. Finally, it had a low cruising altitude so it could get the drop on tanks. spitfires and dedicated fighters would have an altitude advantage from the off.

It was a ground attack plane that could blow up tanks. Not an anti-fighter aircraft.

EDIT: my favourite military aircraft is the Gloster Meteor, however. Dunno why.


EDIT 2: waaaaaait! I know potaria and he knows stuff about WW2 aircraft. That and the sticky tongue mark mean my sarcasmometer has kicked in and realised that was what he was doing. I change my quote to hellepupps one.

Modern Day: I'm stuck between the A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog wasn't the official designation of the model) and the F-22.

Cold-War-Era: SR-71 Blackbird, hands down.

WWII: P-38 Lightning (I seem to have something for storm-related aircraft)

WWI: They were all pretty nifty looking (except the plethora with the squared-off noses).

modern day....f-18 hornet(kind of a f-16 and f-15 mix) and the a-10 and f-4 are bad ass looking and tough also

coldwar....hmmm the sr-71....yep..totally agree there,with honorable mention to the f-14 tomcat(was designed in the late 50's)and is still with upgrades 1 bad ass warplane.

ww2....p-51 mustang with the spitfire as a close second.

ww1...i think it is spelled fokker

What, nobody but me likes transport aircraft?

I've always liked the C-47 Skytrain, the military version of the DC-3. It's one of the engineering marvels of the 20th century. Some of them are still flying in civilian service today.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/DSC00934.jpg/350px-DSC00934.jpg

As for combat aircraft, I like the B-25G Mitchell. The B-25G carried a 75mm M4 cannon in the nose, the largest gun ever mounted on an American bomber. (It's visible in the second picture below.)
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b25g-3.jpg
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b25g-7.jpg

:p

If we are going to allow X types, then the SU-47 should get a mention.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img001/s37berkutlarge.jpg

That's a fine looking aircraft.

If we are going to allow X types, then the SU-47 should get a mention.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img001/s37berkutlarge.jpg

That's a fine looking aircraft.

How did I forget that badass?!?

I prefer the look of the Saab (Reminds me of the Angels from Captain Scarlet) but that should be an honourable mention.

If we are going to allow X types, then the SU-47 should get a mention.

img snip

That's a fine looking aircraft.


do you think, when they were designing that, that they were thinking "aerodynamics and efficiency" or "evil"

My money is on the latter.

And of course the good old "Tante Ju". One of those saved my grandfather from Stalingrad.
http://www.historicflight.co.za/JU52SCEINIC2.jpg

How did I forget that badass?!?

I prefer the look of the Saab (Reminds me of the Angels from Captain Scarlet) but that should be an honourable mention.

Yeah, it's cool. Unfortunately I have heard that for the "fifth generation fighter" production model Sukhoi is going to put the wings back on the "right" way. :(

The SAAB's cool - mostly because it has canards - but I've always been a fan of real exotics, like twin boom jets, reverse sweep wings and asymetrics.

Yeah, it's cool. Unfortunately I have heard that for the "fifth generation fighter" production model Sukhoi is going to put the wings back on the "right" way. :(

The SAAB's cool - mostly because it has canards - but I've always been a fan of real exotics, like twin boom jets, reverse sweep wings and asymetrics.

Nothing like adding extra protrusions on an airframe to make it look cool and simultanously enlarge its radar cross section.

do you think, when they were designing that, that they were thinking "aerodynamics and efficiency" or "evil"

My money is on the latter.

Well officially it is supposed to direct airflow towards the wing roots, preventing stall at the tips and allowing for much higher angles of attack. With the canards you also get good supersonic performance, and a weight saving.

But yeah, really I think it is just because it looks badass.

Nothing like adding extra protrusions on an airframe to make it look cool and simultanously enlarge its radar cross section.

Given the bubble cockpit I don't think that is really much of an issue.

Anyway, it depends on who you intend to fight with it, and how effective you believe stealth technology is going to be in the near term.

Edit: Plus, you could always stealth it up and still keep the forward sweep and canards, this is only a proof of concept.

In my experience, they're all pieces of bovine excrement...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/AC-130_firing_night.gif/250px-AC-130_firing_night.gif

The AC-130H Spectre. Ugly as hell, but with two M242 chain guns and a 105mm howiziter, who cares?

The A-6 was the best attack aircraft, of it's time, 1957-1996.

I spent over 2000 hours in the right seat and every single one was a blast.

http://www.junis.ni.ac.yu/avijacija/avio/a6.jpg

The A-6 was the best attack aircraft, of it's time, 1957-1996.

I spent over 2000 hours in the right seat and every single one was a blast.

http://www.junis.ni.ac.yu/avijacija/avio/a6.jpg

When I used to fish on the pier in Kitty Hawk, NC, there used to be A-6 aircraft that would fly over at night.

I always thought that it was a pretty aircraft (if you could get over the funny looking cockpit.

wow.... that's an odd plane from that angle.


Does it look like a stormtroopers helmet to anyone else? (discount the wings, and only look at and around the cockpit area.)

I was probably guilty of at least one of those flights. I was based at MCAS Cherry Point from 1983-87 and again from 1990-93, including a side trip to Southwest Asia.

We would fly up and down the barrier islands for sight-seeing, test flights, and any other reason that we could find. Fun times...

The plane is ugly on the ground. It's really pretty with the gear up and a dozen thousand pound bombs hanging off the wings. But at night, it's all noise, death, and destruction.

wow.... that's an odd plane from that angle.
Does it look like a stormtroopers helmet to anyone else? (discount the wings, and only look at and around the cockpit area.)

Try this.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/us_mil_a6_01.jpg

oh it's THAT plane! I recognise it now. I tend to be terrible with their names and so on...


Whoasers, lots and lots of bombs. I still maintain it has a stormtrooper cockpit. A mark of honour, to be sure. Looks formidable.

I always liked the F-20 "Tigershark".

http://www.geocities.com/goose_topgun99/f20.html

Better than the F-16 - and easier to maintain - but killed by politics. :headbang:

A few other aircraft I like:

Heinkel He-111
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Heinkel_HE111K.jpg

PBY-5 Catalina
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/PBY_Catalina_landing.jpg

Northrup XB-35
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/XB-35.jpg

:p

the ho xviii

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/ho_xviii/ho_xviii.jpg


Who can tell what inspired the designers of the stealth bomber. it's an enigma to me....

I've always liked the F-14 Tomcat, it's just something about those swing-wings that really gets me... Not to mention its huge AIM-54s... That's not the only plane I like, but its one that just sort of sticks in my mind.

oh it's THAT plane! I recognise it now. I tend to be terrible with their names and so on...


Whoasers, lots and lots of bombs. I still maintain it has a stormtrooper cockpit. A mark of honour, to be sure. Looks formidable.
We could carry racks for 30 five hundred pound bombs. If you look close at the inboard wing racks, 2 & 4, you'll see that they only have 5 bombs. The rear stations on the TER would interfere with the landing gear doors if they were loaded. In Vietnam, I understand they took off the gear doors so they could put that extra bomb on each side.

The Intruder wasn't without some drawbacks, though. We could fly into a target as fast as anyone with bombs carried externally -- 520+ KIAS, but once we dropped the bombs we couldn't accelerate like the airplanes with pointed noses. We were stuck at about 550 or so leaving the target area. We really depended on a good front door/back door SEAD coordination to keep from getting shot at.

Like a lot of folks, I'm a huge fan of the SR-71, but the F-111 was pretty sweet, too.

http://www.ausairpower.net/EF-111A-dvic239a.jpg

Best aircraft that never was, though? Behold! The A-12, aka the Flying Dorito! :D

http://www.astrosurf.org/lombry/Sciences/a-12-avenger-side.jpg

I think I like the F-82/P-82 Twin Mustang. Just for the novelty factor :p

Oooohh, a hard one! My faovourite old (ie non current) plane is probably the ground attack version of the Hurricane. Hurri cos it won the Battle of Britain, was easier to keep flying and tougher than the Spit, and actually handled better - Ok so I'm not sure about the last one, the spit was faster, but the Hurri beat it in more than one field. Ground attack cos it had two baddass cannons slung under the wings. I've got the airfix hanging from my celing.

Modern plane, erm, the Rafael looks fantastic, but I'd say it's pipped to the post by the most baddass of them all, the SU47 (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Anabasis/Sukhoi37B.jpg)

Well, I'm sleepy, but avoiding sleep, so I thought I would post a random thread.

What is your favorite aircraft?

Why?

I will make a poll if a fair number of people post, giving me a good starting place.

Also, give reasons why, and if you want to put additional ones(#2, #3, etc), feel free.

In fighter class:

Props: P-51 and P-38 thunderbolt.

I'd also mention the spitfire and zero, but the reasons I like the above aircraft are due to the bubble cockpit glass.

Jet class: F22, Eurofighter, Blackbird, the more modern Migs, F-15, 14, 18, 16, and Warthog.

Bomber class: Just the B-17 Flying fortress.

http://www.limalima.com/art/A-10%20Warthog.jpg

The A-10 Warthog.

Always like ground-support aircraft, the whole drama from Top Gun and air jockeys/knights dueling each other never struck me as fascinating. And the Warthog is good at what it does.

Plus, it's unique and good looking. Kid's got hella style.
Infantry toops LOVE that ugly Som-bitch! :D

I always liked the F-20 "Tigershark".

http://www.geocities.com/goose_topgun99/f20.html

Better than the F-16 - and easier to maintain - but killed by politics. :headbang:

LOL, the bio says it could withstand 9 G's... That's a total understatement. In one of the flight tests, it pulled a 20+ G turn, which actually killed the pilot.

Breacuse Iam Biased and From Lincolnshire mine is the Lanc

Hmmmm

P-51. Had a great-uncle that flew one in the war.
Always kind of liked the P-47 Thunderbolt for some reason.

For a bomber the B-17. A guy in my highschool was the son of the guy(he was a pilot in the war) that flew one to the Smithsonian several years ago. He went along for the ride. Lucky bastard!

Well, I'm sleepy, but avoiding sleep, so I thought I would post a random thread.

What is your favorite aircraft?

Why?

I will make a poll if a fair number of people post, giving me a good starting place.

Also, give reasons why, and if you want to put additional ones(#2, #3, etc), feel free.
The thrust-vectored (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article19.html) Fighting Falcon (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f16/)! AWESOME!

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/4332/falcon104xg.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

LOL, the bio says it could withstand 9 G's... That's a total understatement. In one of the flight tests, it pulled a 20+ G turn, which actually killed the pilot.
I heard that. IIRC it was also cheaper to build than an F-16.

Faster, Better, Cheaper, More agile. The project must be cancelled. :rolleyes:

F-4 Phantom II

http://www.ilexikon.com/images/b/b5/Phantom2.jpg

Double ugly, smoky, whatever you want to call it, it was a lumbering old beast of a bird that could carry a lot of ordnance (for its day) and both deliver and receive a lot of punishment. One of the first modern multi-role fighters and still useful (with upgrades) today.

One of the first modern multi-role fighters and still useful (with upgrades) today.


If you're a Third World country, sure.

I heard that. IIRC it was also cheaper to build than an F-16.

Faster, Better, Cheaper, More agile. The project must be cancelled. :rolleyes:

Gotta love sub-moronic politics.

F-4 Phantom II

http://www.ilexikon.com/images/b/b5/Phantom2.jpg

Double ugly, smoky, whatever you want to call it, it was a lumbering old beast of a bird that could carry a lot of ordnance (for its day) and both deliver and receive a lot of punishment. One of the first modern multi-role fighters and still useful (with upgrades) today.

Dude, the F-4 Phantom pilots on a History Channel documentary all called it a "turkey", and said what a poor fighter it was. They flew it because they had to, not because they wanted to.

I heard that. IIRC it was also cheaper to build than an F-16.

Faster, Better, Cheaper, More agile. The project must be cancelled. :rolleyes:
I remember that the F-20 was not built under a government contract. So when Northrup tried to market it, the U.S. didn't want it, nor did foreign governments. The foreign sales would have more than paid the NRE costs on the plane, but Northrup couldn't convince anyone that this was better than the F-16 -- mainly because the US wouldn't buy it. Sad to see such an innovative aircraft fail for such non-technical reasons.

Dude, the F-4 Phantom pilots on a History Channel documentary all called it a "turkey", and said what a poor fighter it was. They flew it because they had to, not because they wanted to.

Back in its day, this was a pretty hot airplane. The Midway carried them until the mid '80s when they were forced to switch to using lawn darts (F-18s) for fighter missions. We hated the darts because they always needed tankers, so all the wing aircraft that were capable had to carry buddy stores.

I was a hero for a couple hours after returning from tanking an F-18. I couldn't reel in the hose on our buddy store and I couldn't land with it reeled out. The procedure was to guillotine the hose and land. Then the hose would be replaced and the hydraulics fixed. I couldn't guillotine the hose, though. Still couldn't land. The last remedy left to us was to jettison the store. That worked. The CAG yelled at us, but our skipper was pretty happy about having one less POS buddy store to maintain.

It lacked a gun, it wasn't as agile as a MiG-17 or MiG-21, it cost a lot of money, etc., etc., but it scarcely was a turkey. It did what it was designed to do, and more. Yes, it had plenty of disadvantages but for its day it was better than most Western aircraft.

One could similarly say the early F/A-18 Hornets were turkeys (its engines guzzle too much fuel, it can't carry enough ordnance) or the early F-16s were (inadequate radar in comparison to similar vintage F/A-18s).

Yes, Cluichstan, it is only useful if you're one of the poorer countries.

Dude, the F-4 Phantom pilots on a History Channel documentary all called it a "turkey", and said what a poor fighter it was. They flew it because they had to, not because they wanted to.


Terrible fighter, sure, but in its day, it was great for the Wild Weasel mission (well, the G model anyway).

Back in its day, this was a pretty hot airplane. The Midway carried them until the mid '80s when they were forced to switch to using lawn darts (F-18s) for fighter missions. We hated the darts because they always needed tankers, so all the wing aircraft that were capable had to carry buddy stores.

I was a hero for a couple hours after returning from tanking an F-18. I couldn't reel in the hose on our buddy store and I couldn't land with it reeled out. The procedure was to guillotine the hose and land. Then the hose would be replaced and the hydraulics fixed. I couldn't guillotine the hose, though. Still couldn't land. The last remedy left to us was to jettison the store. That worked. The CAG yelled at us, but our skipper was pretty happy about having one less POS buddy store to maintain.

Good stuff.

I've read about the F/A-18's piss-poor range. It's not a good thing, no matter how you look at it.

Terrible fighter, sure, but great for the Wild Weasel mission (well, the G model anyway).

The pilots said that was one of its few redeeming qualities. :p

Back in its day, this was a pretty hot airplane. The Midway carried them until the mid '80s when they were forced to switch to using lawn darts (F-18s) for fighter missions. We hated the darts because they always needed tankers, so all the wing aircraft that were capable had to carry buddy stores.

I was a hero for a couple hours after returning from tanking an F-18. I couldn't reel in the hose on our buddy store and I couldn't land with it reeled out. The procedure was to guillotine the hose and land. Then the hose would be replaced and the hydraulics fixed. I couldn't guillotine the hose, though. Still couldn't land. The last remedy left to us was to jettison the store. That worked. The CAG yelled at us, but our skipper was pretty happy about having one less POS buddy store to maintain.

Until the so-called Super Hornet came out, running out of fuel was the hallmark of the F-18.

Now the A-6 has been replaced by the Super Hornet. I know the A-6 airframe was aging, but I wonder if this was really a good idea.

Terrible fighter, sure, but in its day, it was great for the Wild Weasel mission (well, the G model anyway).
It's not the plane, it's the pilots. The WW pilots that flew with us were absolutely fearless. They were great. I used to buy them drinks all the time. The RF-4 pilots were cut from the same cloth. You could always count on really good photo recon when they were assigned to a target.

Until the so-called Super Hornet came out, running out of fuel was the hallmark of the F-18.

Now the A-6 has been replaced by the Super Hornet. I know the A-6 airframe was aging, but I wonder if this was really a good idea.
Yes, sadly. There's still not a real all-weather attack aircraft in the Navy/Marine Corps, though. By the time I got orders out of A6's, the maintenance was just unbearable. We had finished re-winging all the planes that needed it, but new inspections were exposing problems in the tail section on planes that had had a lot of traps.

The A6-F wasn't the answer, either. It was just a little less piggy. I don't know much about the A-12, but I can't help but to think it would have been a good addition to Navair.

It's not the plane, it's the pilots. The WW pilots that flew with us were absolutely fearless. They were great. I used to buy them drinks all the time. The RF-4 pilots were cut from the same cloth. You could always count on really good photo recon when they were assigned to a target.

True. I've talked with some of the original Wild Weasel pilots (I'm an editor and reporter for a military mag), and those guys have balls of titanium.

Yes, sadly. There's still not a real all-weather attack aircraft in the Navy/Marine Corps, though.

With the addition of the Litening targeting pods to the Corps' Harriers, they're not so bad.

With the addition of the Litening targeting pods to the Corps' Harriers, they're not so bad.

As an infantryman, I have mixed feelings towards close air support. On one hand, when it hits the right thing, it's great. But when I see the bombs separate from the fighter as it goes overhead, and can see the bomb fins clicking, it gives you a little queasy feeling until they land on the target.

I've been as close as 1000 meters to a 2000 lb bomb going off, and that seemed too close.

True. I've talked with some of the original Wild Weasel pilots (I'm an editor and reporter for a military mag), and those guys have balls of titanium.
Hard and light, but prone to stress fractures? ;)

Okay, so it was built in the 70's. But hey, it's still flying, and can pack one helluva a punch. So here's my favorite, the B-52 Stratofortress. Sure, it ain't pretty, but I really don't want to be under one.

With the addition of the Litening targeting pods to the Corps' Harriers, they're not so bad.
I'm a firm believer in two man cockpits. There's no substitute for a good second pair of eyes when you're watching for a mark on the target, SAMs, or enemy air. Night and bad weather bring their own set of distractions and there's plenty of help available when you've got a guy sitting next to you.

Okay, so it was built in the 70's. But hey, it's still flying, and can pack one helluva a punch. So here's my favorite, the B-52 Stratofortress. Sure, it ain't pretty, but I really don't want to be under one.
That's actually a late-1950s plane. But good, none the less.

It would have been interesting to see how good the A-12 could have been.

Both the F-14 and F-111 were saddled with the piss-poor TF-30 engine, and the F-111 suffered early on from wing pivot cracks that caused several losses.

My favorite:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/F22.jpg
I'm glad somebody recognizes air superiority when they see it! That thrust vectoring is cool shit! I heard that the pilots said flying an f-15 needed about 80% brainpower to maintain awareness of all the info andinput. They said the Raptor takes about 10%, leaving 90% to focus on the mission.

Not to mention the f-15 was the definition of air superiority until the Raptor, and the Raptor can blow it out of the sky with minimal effort!

Sea Harrier FA-2 (want to make F-15 pilots cringe in fear? get one of these, plus its harrier! nuf said...)

Cringe in fear from what? The F-15 has NEVER been shot down in air to air combat! NEVER!

I'm glad somebody recognizes air superiority when they see it! That thrust vectoring is cool shit! I heard that the pilots said flying an f-15 needed about 80% brainpower to maintain awareness of all the info andinput. They said the Raptor takes about 10%, leaving 90% to focus on the mission.

Not to mention the f-15 was the definition of air superiority until the Raptor, and the Raptor can blow it out of the sky with minimal effort!
The gossip I hear from Lockheed is that the flight computer works pretty well, but the nav and weapons systems need to be rebooted constantly. It's a pretty slick looking plane, though, and I'm sure they'll get the problems ironed out.

Cringe in fear from what? The F-15 has NEVER been shot down in air to air combat! NEVER!
Come on, there are Saudi pilots out there flying Barn Doors. They probably cringe in fear from everything. Not to mention the Kuwaiti Scooter pilots that couldn't get airborne and into Saudi Arabia fast enough when Saddam invaded. There's something about an Arab pilot...

The gossip I hear from Lockheed is that the flight computer works pretty well, but the nav and weapons systems need to be rebooted constantly. It's a pretty slick looking plane, though, and I'm sure they'll get the problems ironed out.

I've been told by my industry sources that this rebooting problem's been fixed.

The gossip I hear from Lockheed is that the flight computer works pretty well, but the nav and weapons systems need to be rebooted constantly.
That's why the Israelis take all electronics off every American warplane they buy, and replace them with Israel made ones from Elbit and RAFAEL.

Blackbird all the way.

If we are going to allow X types, then the SU-47 should get a mention.


That's a fine looking aircraft.
You, sir, are my new hero. As soon as I saw the title of this thread, I was going to post that, but you beat me to it. So...... I will post my second favorite (also russian - if it flies, no one can build it like the russians)
http://worldweapon.ru/images/sam/tu160/tu160_11.jpg
http://worldweapon.ru/images/sam/tu160/tu160_21.jpg

Tu-160 'Blackjack'. Swing wing bomber.
Speed: 2200 km/h (maximum), 1030 km/h (ground)
Ceiling: 16.000m
Range: 14.000 km (with a load of 9.000kg)
10.500 km (with a load of 40.000 kg)
Armament: 12 H-55 or 24 H-15 missiles

The A-6 was the best attack aircraft, of it's time, 1957-1996.

I spent over 2000 hours in the right seat and every single one was a blast.

The right seat as in the instructor's seat? or are military aircraft different from civilian ones?

That's why the Israelis take all electronics off every American warplane they buy, and replace them with Israel made ones from Elbit and RAFAEL.
I'll bet that has more to do with 'not invented here' than with real quality. The export versions of U.S. aircraft are different, but I'm pretty sure the manufacturer could accommodate quite a few requests from the customer. Part of the problem is that we give the IAF money, but then they can only buy our products. That's fine, but I suspect the government likes to keep the Israeli avionics industry tuned up.

Incidentally, I spent four weeks at Ramat David last fall. Are only the pretty and young girls allowed into the IAF? What happens to the rest? Gaza?

The right seat as in the instructor's seat? or are military aircraft different from civilian ones?
I did instruct for a couple years, but my main job was as a Bombardier/Navigator. Best non-pilot job in the Marine Corps. Everything from the center console on over to the right canopy rail was mine.

http://avionspassion.ifrance.com/avionspassion/photos/a6/cockpit_tm.jpg

I did instruct for a couple years, but my main job was as a Bombardier/Navigator. Best non-pilot job in the Marine Corps. Everything from the center console on over to the right canopy rail was mine.

http://avionspassion.ifrance.com/avionspassion/photos/a6/cockpit_tm.jpg
Hmm.... sweet. The air force is the best way to get the hours I need for my commercial license and my ATPL, but I'm not sure about it. Committing (minimum) 5 years of my life to the air force is a big sacrifice, but it's obviously cheaper than paying for the rest of the hours.

Hmm.... sweet. The air force is the best way to get the hours I need for my commercial license and my ATPL, but I'm not sure about it. Committing (minimum) 5 years of my life to the air force is a big sacrifice, but it's obviously cheaper than paying for the rest of the hours.
Paying for the first 250 hours to get that commercial ticket is hard. Living on the wages you get earning the next thousand is even harder.

I was flying back from El Paso a couple weeks ago. These three pilots were deadheading back to Atlanta. One of them sat next to me. I said something about having a hard time getting used to time zone changes, but I expected that pilots really had a tough time with it. He asked, 'is it that obvious that I'm a pilot?". Somehow the bag with "CREW", the ID cards around his neck, and the big watch gave it away.

We talked a little. Turns out he was bounced out of the Navy for some physical problem right before he was going to be commissioned. He had twenty minutes to decide whether to be a black shoe in the Navy or get out. He managed to find a job flying seaplanes, for $750 a month, in Louisiana during those twenty minutes. Took the job, told the Navy to pack sand and now he's a captain for US Airways flying an international route. Turns out he crashed a few seaplanes along the way, but thanks to some good Navy training in the Dilbert Dunker, he survived them.

What's the moral? Do whatever it takes to get that first flying job. Live with a dozen roommates, or your parents, or your girlfriend or your boyfriend. But get that first job and use it to get another, and so on.

Paying for the first 250 hours to get that commercial ticket is hard. Living on the wages you get earning the next thousand is even harder.

I was flying back from El Paso a couple weeks ago. These three pilots were deadheading back to Atlanta. One of them sat next to me. I said something about having a hard time getting used to time zone changes, but I expected that pilots really had a tough time with it. He asked, 'is it that obvious that I'm a pilot?". Somehow the bag with "CREW", the ID cards around his neck, and the big watch gave it away.

We talked a little. Turns out he was bounced out of the Navy for some physical problem right before he was going to be commissioned. He had twenty minutes to decide whether to be a black shoe in the Navy or get out. He managed to find a job flying seaplanes, for $750 a month, in Louisiana during those twenty minutes. Took the job, told the Navy to pack sand and now he's a captain for US Airways flying an international route. Turns out he crashed a few seaplanes along the way, but thanks to some good Navy training in the Dilbert Dunker, he survived them.

What's the moral? Do whatever it takes to get that first flying job. Live with a dozen roommates, or your parents, or your girlfriend or your boyfriend. But get that first job and use it to get another, and so on.

Yeah, I might be able to get a job flying smoke patrols here in the rockies or something. I've got 70 hours so far, and I can't become commercially licensed until I'm 18 anyway, so it shouldn't be THAT hard getting the 200 hours (in Canada). Of course, the worst thing imaginable would be to fail a medical, but all I can do is hope that won't happen :) .

Yeah, I might be able to get a job flying smoke patrols here in the rockies or something. I've got 70 hours so far, and I can't become commercially licensed until I'm 18 anyway, so it shouldn't be THAT hard getting the 200 hours (in Canada). Of course, the worst thing imaginable would be to fail a medical, but all I can do is hope that won't happen :) .
Good Luck! I hope you have some interesting adventures.

The Canadian Air Force wouldn't be so bad. You can fly F-18s, if you get lucky and haul trash in C-130s if you don't. Good airplanes, good maintenance, okay salary, okay quarters, maybe even some decent travel -- there's a lot of good reasons to spend a few years letting the taxpayers train you.

And you can always go to Comox and have them load the plane with Salmon. I know we always looked forward to trips up there when I was stationed at NAS Whidbey Island.

I'll bet that has more to do with 'not invented here' than with real quality. The export versions of U.S. aircraft are different, but I'm pretty sure the manufacturer could accommodate quite a few requests from the customer. Part of the problem is that we give the IAF money, but then they can only buy our products. That's fine, but I suspect the government likes to keep the Israeli avionics industry tuned up.
Could be, even despite the general neglect of our military industries by the government during the last couple of decades. Damn, I still can't believe they shut down the Lavi project. So much potential wasted.


Incidentally, I spent four weeks at Ramat David last fall. Are only the pretty and young girls allowed into the IAF? What happens to the rest? Gaza?
Young? Yes, the service age is 18 to 20-21. Pretty? Well, you know how we Israelis say, "ha-tovim le tais, ha-tovot le tayasim" (in rough translation, "the air force gets the best guys, the air force guys get the best girls").;)

I'll bet that has more to do with 'not invented here' than with real quality. The export versions of U.S. aircraft are different, but I'm pretty sure the manufacturer could accommodate quite a few requests from the customer. Part of the problem is that we give the IAF money, but then they can only buy our products. That's fine, but I suspect the government likes to keep the Israeli avionics industry tuned up.

That's a huge part of it. But they also use their own EW systems, because they don't want to have the same ones the US has sold to countries like Saudi Arabia.

SR-71.

Followed by Tupolev 95 and SU-27.

My favorite is the F-15E Strike Eagle.

There's just something about flying deep into enemy territory, leveling an important structure, and then fighting your way out.

http://members.aol.com/AFFFDEW/F-15E.jpg

Warthogs own, those things are like flying tanks.

Who's this Allthenamesarereserved guy? That name is too close to mine.

As for my choices....

1. Mig-25. Not the best fighter, true. Gets it's ass beat by an F-16 with a drunk monkey for a pilot. But it just looks so damn cool.

2. SR-71 Blackbird. Cause, I mean, it's just badass. And the only cool thing in the movie D.A.R.Y.L.

3. A-10. In case you ever want to blow shit up!

4. Harrier. I mean, come on, you have to like a jump-jet.

MiG-31.

Raw Power.

Great Radar.

Not bad range.

Kick ass looks.

Sounds just like me.

No one likes Helicopters, hey?
http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/tigerger2.jpg

The Avro Vulcan. Beautiful.

The Avro Vulcan. Beautiful.

the last remaining working (but not flying) vulcan is parked just about a mile away from my house (in norfolk, UK). it is unbelievably loud when they switch the engines on.

That's a huge part of it. But they also use their own EW systems, because they don't want to have the same ones the US has sold to countries like Saudi Arabia.
LOL. Right...Once you know how they work, there's not much mystery in beating them.

Do you freelance or are you a staff writer?

No one likes Helicopters, hey?

No, there's nothing to like about fling--wing airplanes. They're slow, the air-conditioning sucks, and they don't really fly. They just beat the air into submission. But if I had ever ended up needing a rescue, I would have wanted a couple dozen of them on hand. Big ones with lots of guns.

http://www.minihelicopter.net/HH3EJollyGreenGiant/HH-3E%20Jolly%20Green%20Giant.jpg

WW1 era: Sopwith Pup.
Why? Because it was the early mainstay of Allied fighter aircraft, and under skilled hands it could be a match for almost any Central Powers aircraft. Besides, it's not as butt ugly as the Camel.

WW2 era single engine: ME/BF-109 series.
Why? The 109 was consistantly upgraded and used as the mainstay of the luftwaffe throughout the war, it could out climb, out dive, and out run any opponant up until the latter stages of the war, and it had a look that simply said "I'm going to kick your ass" to any enemy pilot.

WW2 era twin engine: Northrup P-61 Black Widow.
Why? Designed specificly from the beginning to be equipped with RADAR, and armed to the teeth with four 20mm cannons and foiur 12.7mm machine guns (Which were removed on some models). The P-61 was an all around amazing fighter, ut saw little action due to low numbers of aircraft produced in favor of the P-51 and P-47 series. Although it should be noted that the crews absolutely loved it.

Early Jet: He-162 Salamander.
Why? By far the fastest combat fighter of the second world war, capable of outrunning even the venerable Me-262. Cheap and designed in a very short period of time, as well as having excellent flight characteristics under a skilled pilot, the only thing that hampered the Salamander was poor German construction in the last few months of the war.

Jet Fighter: Avro CF-105 Arrow.
Why? In 1957 is was the only aircraft capable of catching, ourtunning, out climbing, and killing the new American U2 DragonLady. The list of firsts accomplished by the Arrow is long, including fly by wire and several areodynamic features to improve supersonic flight. It has been said that had the Arrow not been scrapped, it would still be on the front line of the Canadian airforce today, and among the worlds best fighters.

Attack Helicopter: Mil-28 Havoc.
Why? Heavily armed and armoured, this is Russias answer to the AH-64 and AH-1. The Havoc is much more capable of Air-to-Air combat then the AH-64, and has been known to absorb enormous ammounts of battle damage. Unfortunatly the colapse of the USSR has caused this wonderful aircraft to nit see much of its potential in the international light.


So, there's my list.

Warplanes of all times- the Russian IL2 Shturmovik, closely followed by the Spitfire.

The Shturmovik was an absolute marvel. An ideal World war II ground attack aicraft. Fully armored to withstand anti-aircraft fire, armed to the teeth and the world's first rocket carrying warplane. It was to the aircrafts of its time what the German Tiger or the Russian JS II were to the tanks.

Modern warplanes? The Lavi and the F15I "Raam" (Israeli upgrade of the F15)

The Lavi, if it wasn't shut down under American pressure, would have given both the F16 and the Eurofighter a run for their money- if they would even see it coming. Think a smaller, lighter, better flying and much more more robust F16 on the outside that is several times more software rich on the inside, and a radar that is second to no one. The only thing it was somewhat lacking was speed- but in modern air combat excessive speed is no longer needed, especially for defense of a country as small as Israel is.

The F15 ... Gotta love a jet that can withstand an air to air missile and still stay in the air, or land even with one of its wings completely torn off. Not to mention that it was the F15 that blew away the MiG myth- the world was absolutely convinced in the Russian Mig25 "Foxbat" superiority over any Western warplane until the Syrian "Foxbats" began dropping like flies every time they faced an Israeli F15.

HAd to shut it down. It was based off of the F16 platform and they were selling the tech to the PRC. Just like they threatened to do with their clone of the AWACS. Some allies huh?

My favorite:

The V-22 Osprey
http://www.minihelicopter.net/V22Osprey/V-22%20Osprey.jpg

The Joint Strike Fighters always fascinated me. It is extremely versatile, and can take off and land vertically. The V-22 Osprey has potential, but only if they can seriously rework the quirks in it. However, they have been flown by the US Marines for about a year so far, and while it's only a few test flights, there've been no significant accidents.

My favorite; B-52.

Why? Because I worked on them for over 20 years and they are awsome aircraft.

Second favorite; KC-10.

Why? I worked on them for over 5 years and they are a great flying aircraft.

have several.
A-10 Warthog. Ugly but to the troops on the ground, an angel. to the pilots, a flying Tank.
F14 Tomcat. Love that jet.
SR-71 Blackbird. Fast and sleek.
B-52 that plane was built to take a beating that would down other bombers and still return home.

I'd say my favorite combat airplane is the DeHavilland Mosquito. After that its the EE Lightning and Hawker Hunter. Mabye the MiG-21 fourth. And you can't forget the BAe Hawk.

HAd to shut it down. It was based off of the F16 platform and they were selling the tech to the PRC. Just like they threatened to do with their clone of the AWACS. Some allies huh?
Umm no. Some Lavi technologies were sold to CAIC AFTER the cancellation of the Lavi project, in a bid to recover part of the invested money. It had nothing to do with the reasons behind cancelling the Lavi project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavi

The project was canceled in part because the U.S. was not prepared to finance an aircraft that would compete in the export market with the F-16C/D and the F/A-18C/D, and also because a dispute arose as to the final cost. The Israeli government was unable to finance the project alone and canceled it on August 30, 1987.

...It is reported that after the cancelation of the project, the blue prints of Lavi were sold to Chinese aircraft manufacturing company CAC, which lead to the development of the Chengdu J-10.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/j-10.htm

The J-10 [the export version being designated F-10] is a multi-role single-engine and single-seat tactical fighter, with its combat radius of 1,000 km. It is designed for point defensive warfare with performance generatlly matching aircraft such as the Mirage 2000 deployed by Taiwan. Apparently, Chinese engineers are trying to develop the J-10 from a single F-16 provided by Pakistan[b], and with assistance from Israeli engineers associated with Israel’s US-financed Lavi fighter program, which was cancelled in 1987.

[b]...It is unclear what specific technologies and systems Israel has provided, although it is reported that the Jian-10's radar and fire-control system is the Israeli-made ELM-2021 system, which can simultaneously track six air targets and lock onto the four most-threatening targets for destruction. Some experts believe that the Israeli contribution will focus on avionics and radar, with Russia supplying the engines.

In other words, what Israel provided to China from the Lavi project were Israeli made technologies, and the rest was acquired by reverse-egineering a Paki F16.

http://www.suchoj.com/ab1953/Su-47/images/Su-47_07.jpg

SU-47 Berkut

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/mig29_012.jpg

The MiG-29

http://www.spitcrazy.com/mosquito-lr.jpg

De Havilland Mosquito

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/fokker_dvii.jpg

Fokker D-VII

EDIT- As for helicopters, the Comanche

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/images/comanche_small.JPG

The Grumman F-14D Super Tomcat.
1. Best air-superiority fighter of the US Navy.
2. Closest real aircraft that resembles the venerable VF-1 Valkyrie.
3. Macross Zero.
4. Skull One. (The FA-18E/F paintjob of the Skull Leader aircraft [VF-103] looks weird.)
5. Topgun(crappy movie on technicality, but...)

The C-130, for sheer utility.

The MiG 29 and Su 27 families sure are nice looking.

Ju87 Stuka (http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_006/LC_04-005-Junkers-JU-87-Stuka-dive%20bomber.jpg ) and Grumman Corsair F4U (http://www.lunerouge.org/films/terminal/corsair-01.jpg), because of that incredibly beautiful wing shape. Besides, both did very well during their time in service.

Ju87 Stuka (http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_006/LC_04-005-Junkers-JU-87-Stuka-dive%20bomber.jpg ) and Grumman Corsair F4U (http://www.lunerouge.org/films/terminal/corsair-01.jpg), because of that incredibly beautiful wing shape. Besides, both did very well during their time in service.

The Stuka was great bomber, but not much of fighter. More like target practice for the Spitfires.

oh boy, you haven't seen the experimental nazi planes untill you've seen these.
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/welcome1.htm - its full of models of concept aircraft and so on.

My favourties the triebflugel http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/FOCKE-WULF%20TRIEBFLUGEL%20PAGE.htm

and that one which was in indiana jones - unfortunatly it was not real.:(

The Stuka was great bomber, but not much of fighter. More like target practice for the Spitfires.

True. Though Spittfire was even worse bomber than Stuka was a fighter :rolleyes: Those two planes were great for the role they were made for.

One of the main reasons I love Corsair was the fact it was good in both.

The Stuka was great bomber, but not much of fighter. More like target practice for the Spitfires.

As a bomber, the Stuka was target practice.

Apart from the problems with the design (slow, not that manuverable), the basic problem was the premise that dive bombing was vital for close air support. That, I think was the root cause of the Stuka's problems because it was designed to nothing well except carry some bombs, dive accurately, and pull out.

There was no real reason for this German belief, the reason for it was Ernst Udet being thrilled while vertically diving a Curtis Hawk (two of which bought him into the National Socialist fold, a 'present' from Goering). Udet was a great pilot, his WW1 record, and barn-storming after the war show that, but he was an atrocious technical director. Still its wierd how the National Socialists were a magnet for flying dare-devils, Goering, Heydrich, and Hess as well as Udet (Hess would use a Party plane to buzz communist public meetings).

Apart from the problems with the design (slow, not that manuverable), the basic problem was the premise that dive bombing was vital for close air support.
Well, it did its job in Poland and France. It was made for the shock-and-awe style campaign that leaves the enemy airforce destroyed.
When it was countered by enemy planes, well, it was in trouble. I really don't see why they even bothered sending them over to Britain.

My favourite SU-37 http://img366.imageshack.us/my.php?image=su37terminatordarkground3zn.jpg

Well, it did its job in Poland and France. It was made for the shock-and-awe style campaign that leaves the enemy airforce destroyed.
When it was countered by enemy planes, well, it was in trouble. I really don't see why they even bothered sending them over to Britain.

Poland and France had air forces.

France had a rather good air force, and was assisted by the RAF.

Britain got lucky that Hitler decided to bomb the cities instead of air fields.

Poland and France had air forces.

France had a rather good air force, and was assisted by the RAF.

Britain got lucky that Hitler decided to bomb the cities instead of air fields.

The German bombers were not the long range ones of the type which the US and UK used to firebombed Germany later. They mainly used light or medium bombers with rather short range. The stupid thing the Nazis were working on the first jet bombers but they never got developed in time.

Poland and France had air forces.

France had a rather good air force, and was assisted by the RAF.

Britain got lucky that Hitler decided to bomb the cities instead of air fields.
a) Well, Poland's didn't count. They were triplanes!
b) France was suprised as far as aerial battles were concerned, and much of the fighting was done by the much better Bf 109.
c) Yep, it's true, the Luftwaffe might even have won if they hadn't changed strategies just like that. But a big thanks for that also needs to go to Göring. Incompetent pretentious bastard.

The stupid thing the Nazis were working on the first jet bombers but they never got developed in time.
Well, it was Hitler's infatuation with those jet bombers that led to the Me262 only coming in so late. They wanted to turn it into a fighter-bomber, all the while watching thousands and thousands of bombers going over their own cities. But a big thanks for that also needs to go to Göring. Incompetent pretentious bastard.

Well, it was Hitler's infatuation with those jet bombers that led to the Me262 only coming in so late. They wanted to turn it into a fighter-bomber, all the while watching thousands and thousands of bombers going over their own cities. But a big thanks for that also needs to go to Göring. Incompetent pretentious bastard.

The ME262 while having rather unreliable engines would have been very effective with it's radar and 4 x 20mm cannons against those bombers.

Check out this site
http://www.luft46.com/

Some of the plane look rather familar :)

The one that REALLY takes the cake is Antonov A40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AntonovA40.jpg).

Yep, it was a flying tank. Literally.

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/mig-25_1.jpg
MiG25 Foxbat
I was still young when I saw the first pictures of this 'enemy' aircraft, little was known, only that it was fast. Faster than anything the West had. At the time it was my favorite and today I still like it because it reminds me of those days.

The ME262 while having rather unreliable engines would have been very effective with it's radar and 4 x 20mm cannons against those bombers.

Check out this site
http://www.luft46.com/

Some of the plane look rather familar :)

The engines lasted only 12 hours because the Germans had to use inferior metals(they lacked the correct material). But they were definitly powerful, But I believe it was armed with four Borsig 30mm cannons, Ive seen a picture of a B-17 hit by such a gun, a big hole in the wing and a wonder that it reached its homebase :) .

Who's this Allthenamesarereserved guy? That name is too close to mine.

lol yeh, weird huh...... :)

EDIT- As for helicopters, the Comanche

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/images/comanche_small.JPG


The Comanche program was cancelled about a year and a half ago, though.

My favorite:

The V-22 Osprey
http://www.minihelicopter.net/V22Osprey/V-22%20Osprey.jpg

Yeah, really cool...if they can keep it airborne.

Do you freelance or are you a staff writer?

Staff. Been covering this stuff for almost eight years now. :cool:

EDIT: Oh, and as for helicopters, you've gotta love the bizarro cockpit of the Mi-24.

http://worldweapon.ru/images/vertuski/mi24/mi24_01.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/m/mi24032.jpg

I really don't see why they even bothered sending them over to Britain.

What else did they have in terms of the ability of bomb precisely?

They mainly used light or medium bombers with rather short range. The stupid thing the Nazis were working on the first jet bombers but they never got developed in time.

The real problem was that no one in Germany really thought of how an air force should be used, and no one from Goering down had the training, or the intelligence to do such thinking. Germany had no Trenchard, or Mitchell, just a few junior officers with a little low cunning more than outweighed by mental illnesses.

German projects to create a strategic bomber were hampered by Udet's nostalgia for his barn-storming days, he insisted the aircraft thus created have the ability to dive bomb!

They could have developed jet bombers in time, for Hitler's political interference, the incompetance of Goering, and the curtailment of long-term research in 1940.

The ME262 while having rather unreliable engines would have been very effective with it's radar and 4 x [30]mm cannons against those bombers.

The radar equipped version of the 262, with two seats, was intended as a night fighter. The best use for them would have been against the British Mosquito night fighters that escorted the bombers. No German night fighter could catch a Mosquito.

Faster than anything the West had.

It could get faster, but to do it, you had to completely destroy the engines, and at any high speed, it had a turning circle the size of Korea.

The most damage it ever caused was a few unjustified brown-trousers in Washington.

Staff. Been covering this stuff for almost eight years now. :cool:

EDIT: Oh, and as for helicopters, you've gotta love the bizarro cockpit of the Mi-24.
The cockpit of the Mi-24 isn't so bizarre, seeing that is modelled on that of Western attack helicopters, but the fact that the Soviets decided to fix a cabin to it. Party-thinking for you.

But the backseater is up so bloody high that it looks really weird.

Staff. Been covering this stuff for almost eight years now. :cool:

EDIT: Oh, and as for helicopters, you've gotta love the bizarro cockpit of the Mi-24.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/m/mi24032.jpg

You think that's ugly? Marks A-C had this cockpit:

http://www.mcpherson3d.com/russian/hinda.JPG

Your picture is a Hind D. You can actually see the Hind-A in the movie Red Dawn, from the 70's. This particular version actually had an infantry transport capability, in a sense similar to the MI-8 with rocket pods, which slowed down maneuvering, which is why the Hind D came into existance, with internal additional ammunition storage instead of infantry capacity.

As a bomber, the Stuka was target practice.

Apart from the problems with the design (slow, not that manuverable), the basic problem was the premise that dive bombing was vital for close air support. That, I think was the root cause of the Stuka's problems because it was designed to nothing well except carry some bombs, dive accurately, and pull out.

Dive bombing is very useful for CAS. We did that in Desert Storm from 30K. That tactic was developed because 1) we were operating in a very permissive environment, SAM-wise, and 2) we didn't want to lose aircraft to unguided AAA. Bombers are always targets. It's just the nature of the mission. You can try all sorts of jinking in and out of the target area, but there are always about five or six seconds of wings level flight when you acquire the target and drop the bombs.

Dive bombing is very useful for CAS. We did that in Desert Storm from 30K. That tactic was developed because 1) we were operating in a very permissive environment, SAM-wise, and 2) we didn't want to lose aircraft to unguided AAA. Bombers are always targets. It's just the nature of the mission. You can try all sorts of jinking in and out of the target area, but there are always about five or six seconds of wings level flight when you acquire the target and drop the bombs.

As the resident infantryman, I approve of any bombing tactic that lessens your bombing run over me and my own troops. And puts the iron on the target.

All these are purely for the look of the aircraft, and not it's actual capabilities or performance.

And I'm restricting myself to relatively modern aircraft, otherwise I'll be here for days... :p

---

B-1 Bomber
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/b-1b_050207-f-2907c-253.jpg

F-5 Tiger
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-5e-DF-ST-82-06288.jpg

C-17 Globemaster
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/20000112-f-2171a-005.jpg

Mi-24 Hind
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/hind2a.jpg

JAS 39 Gripen
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/jas6.jpg

AMX Fighter-Bomber
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/amx/amx3.html

WW2 era single engine: Bf-109 series.
Why? The 109 was consistently upgraded and used as the mainstay of the Luftwaffe throughout the war, it could out climb, out dive, and out run any opponent up until the latter stages of the war, and it had a look that simply said "I'm going to kick your ass" to any enemy pilot.
Small cockpit, poor visibility, short-ranged, terrible landing characteristics (same with the Spitfire due to the narrow landing track), but in all a decent airplane that was outperformed in the later stages of the war by the P-51, the Yak-3, and La-5.

Early Jet: He-162 Salamander.
Why? By far the fastest combat fighter of the second world war, capable of outrunning even the venerable Me-262. Cheap and designed in a very short period of time, as well as having excellent flight characteristics under a skilled pilot, the only thing that hampered the Salamander was poor German construction in the last few months of the war.
Fell apart in the air (due to the poor wood-and-glue based construction) and unflyable by the scarcely trained pilots meant to fly it.

Jet Fighter: Avro CF-105 Arrow.
Why? In 1957 is was the only aircraft capable of catching, ourtunning, out climbing, and killing the new American U2 DragonLady. The list of firsts accomplished by the Arrow is long, including fly by wire and several areodynamic features to improve supersonic flight. It has been said that had the Arrow not been scrapped, it would still be on the front line of the Canadian airforce today, and among the worlds best fighters.
Probably not in service as it couldn't perform other standard fighter roles as effectively as it could its interceptor role. Besides, the Trudeau era would have plagued the aircraft with a poor maintenance record (as the Sea King does today) from lack of spares and old age. Canada might, however, have an all-round fighter that could do the job better than the Hornet can. Still, the Arrow would have been a great aircraft and I hope Diefenbacker's having a wonderfully rotten time in Hell.

Attack Helicopter: Mil-28 Havoc.
Why? Heavily armed and armoured, this is Russias answer to the AH-64 and AH-1. The Havoc is much more capable of Air-to-Air combat then the AH-64, and has been known to absorb enormous amounts of battle damage. Unfortunately the collapse of the USSR has caused this wonderful aircraft to not see much of its potential in the international light.[/QUOTE]
The Kamov Hokum was/is considered even better (smaller target, more manoeuvrable) though its one-man cockpit tended to demand too much from the pilot.

As the resident infantryman, I approve of any bombing tactic that lessens your bombing run over me and my own troops. And puts the iron on the target.
From day one, Marine pilots are trained to find out where the FLOT is and make runs parallel to the troops, if they can. Front door/Back door SEAD and a good FAC makes it all possible.

I've only done one "danger close" attack. We put the bombs on target based on a beacon signal within 800 yards of friendlies. We lofted the bombs to make things worse. When we didn't hear back from the FAC for a few minutes, we started calling him. When he finally answered, he explained that they were celebrating our direct hit on a T54/55 that had them pinned down.

Well, if we're talking helicopters, time to mention the KA-50-2
ERDOGAN (http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/ah/ka502.html)

But the backseater is up so bloody high that it looks really weird.
No different than in the Franco-German Tiger.

Fokker Triplane, simply pure class.

It could get faster, but to do it, you had to completely destroy the engines, and at any high speed, it had a turning circle the size of Korea.

The most damage it ever caused was a few unjustified brown-trousers in Washington.
I cant help it, I was always impressed by this plane.

In a high Mach intercept mission, the MiG-25 should be using its excess thrust for climb, not for turning. The GCI should ensure that the Foxbat is positioned so that it can complete the intercept without violent maneuvers.

The MiG-25 that was clocked at Mach 3.2 by the Israelis achieved this speed while running from an intercepting F-4 (which can barely manage Mach 2 on a good day--before running out of fuel). Upon landing, both engines in the MiG had to be replaced.
Victor Belenko, the Foxbat pilot who defected in 1976, stated that the top speed of the MiG-25 was Mach 2.8, but flight above Mach 2.6 was difficult because of a tendency of the engines to overspeed. Victor related that MiG-25 pilots were in fact restricted to flying below Mach 2.5 except with special permission.



especially in performance, you might consider the abilities of Western fighters. The F-16 can just barely squeak past Mach 2.0 with a pair of tip 'winders. The F-14 can only manage Mach 1.81. And the mighty Eagle is only good for Mach 1.78. The Foxbat can outclimb all of these fighters by a healthy margin, and has a mauch better supersonic endurance than the best Western fighter. Furthermore, the Foxbat has demonstrated the ability to outrun all U.S. frontline fighters at _low_ altitude. The Foxbat is hardly a dud.

Did you know that a MiG-25PD recorded the only Iraqi air-to-air kill of the Gulf War? It dropped an F-18C on the first night of the war--then went on to fire another missile at an A-6 and buzz an A-7, all while avoiding escorting F-14s and F-15s.
An isolated incident? How about the single Iraqi Foxbat-E that eluded eight sweeping F-15s then tangled with two EF-111As, firing three missiles at the Ravens and chasing them off station. Unfortunately, the Ravens were supporting an F-15E strike, and the EF-111's retreat led to the loss of one of the Strike Eagles to a SAM. Oh BTW, the Foxbat easily avoided interception and returned safely to base.

There's more. When F-15 pilots were fighting for the chance to fly sweeps east of Baghdad late in the war, itching for a chance to get a shot at an Iraqi running for Iran, they weren't expecting the fight that a pair of Foxbats put up. Two Foxbats approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles before the Eagles could get off shots (the missiles were evaded by the Eagles), then outran those two Eagles, four Sparrows and two Sidewinders fired back at them. Two more Eagles maneuvered to cut the Foxbat's off from their base (four more Eagles tried, but were unable to effect an intercept), and four more Sparrows were expended in vain trying to drop the Foxbats.

The Iraqis had a total of twelve MiG-25PDs at the beginning of the war, of which maybe half were operational at any given time. Imagine what trouble they would have caused if there had been more. The Foxbats, when well flown, proved capable of engaging allied fighters and avoiding them at will. Only the limitations of their weapons proved a problem.

Cringe in fear from what? The F-15 has NEVER been shot down in air to air combat! NEVER!

The claim is absed on vague recolections of magazine reports about exercises where Sea Harrier FA-2s had a better than 50% win rate against F-15 units, a better score than any other western aircraft until the arrival of the likes of the Typhoon (mind you the F-15 is still winning orders over the Typhoon and Rafale).


As for the F-4 those still in service aren't used by 3rd world nations but by germany, greece, turkey and possibly Isreal (i can't remeber if they finally retired thiers), although only germany still uses it in an Air to Air role as a stop gap for the Typhoon, mind you the german fighter version are still pretty nasty with thier latest upgrades (AMRAAM, datalinks etc, heck for a while they were ahead of the RAF Tornado F3!).
The F-4 would not amke a good 3rd world fighter it simply uses far too much fuel and needs too much in the way of infrastructure.

I cant help it, I was always impressed by this plane.

In a high Mach intercept mission, the MiG-25 should be using its excess thrust for climb, not for turning. The GCI should ensure that the Foxbat is positioned so that it can complete the intercept without violent maneuvers.

The MiG-25 that was clocked at Mach 3.2 by the Israelis achieved this speed while running from an intercepting F-4 (which can barely manage Mach 2 on a good day--before running out of fuel). Upon landing, both engines in the MiG had to be replaced.
Victor Belenko, the Foxbat pilot who defected in 1976, stated that the top speed of the MiG-25 was Mach 2.8, but flight above Mach 2.6 was difficult because of a tendency of the engines to overspeed. Victor related that MiG-25 pilots were in fact restricted to flying below Mach 2.5 except with special permission.



especially in performance, you might consider the abilities of Western fighters. The F-16 can just barely squeak past Mach 2.0 with a pair of tip 'winders. The F-14 can only manage Mach 1.81. And the mighty Eagle is only good for Mach 1.78. The Foxbat can outclimb all of these fighters by a healthy margin, and has a mauch better supersonic endurance than the best Western fighter. Furthermore, the Foxbat has demonstrated the ability to outrun all U.S. frontline fighters at _low_ altitude. The Foxbat is hardly a dud.

Did you know that a MiG-25PD recorded the only Iraqi air-to-air kill of the Gulf War? It dropped an F-18C on the first night of the war--then went on to fire another missile at an A-6 and buzz an A-7, all while avoiding escorting F-14s and F-15s.
An isolated incident? How about the single Iraqi Foxbat-E that eluded eight sweeping F-15s then tangled with two EF-111As, firing three missiles at the Ravens and chasing them off station. Unfortunately, the Ravens were supporting an F-15E strike, and the EF-111's retreat led to the loss of one of the Strike Eagles to a SAM. Oh BTW, the Foxbat easily avoided interception and returned safely to base.

There's more. When F-15 pilots were fighting for the chance to fly sweeps east of Baghdad late in the war, itching for a chance to get a shot at an Iraqi running for Iran, they weren't expecting the fight that a pair of Foxbats put up. Two Foxbats approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles before the Eagles could get off shots (the missiles were evaded by the Eagles), then outran those two Eagles, four Sparrows and two Sidewinders fired back at them. Two more Eagles maneuvered to cut the Foxbat's off from their base (four more Eagles tried, but were unable to effect an intercept), and four more Sparrows were expended in vain trying to drop the Foxbats.

The Iraqis had a total of twelve MiG-25PDs at the beginning of the war, of which maybe half were operational at any given time. Imagine what trouble they would have caused if there had been more. The Foxbats, when well flown, proved capable of engaging allied fighters and avoiding them at will. Only the limitations of their weapons proved a problem.


Syrian Mig-25 have been intercepted and shot down by Israeli F-15.

Evidently, a fast plane is not everything. You need a good pilot.

Syrian Mig-25 have been intercepted and shot down by Israeli F-15.

Evidently, a fast plane is not everything. You need a good pilot.

Indeed, a good pilot is always required in any aircraft. But the MiG-25 was not to be underestimated, that was the point I was trying to prove and I think I succeeded.

As for the F-4 those still in service aren't used by 3rd world nations but by germany, greece, turkey and possibly Isreal (i can't remeber if they finally retired thiers), although only germany still uses it in an Air to Air role as a stop gap for the Typhoon, mind you the german fighter version are still pretty nasty with thier latest upgrades (AMRAAM, datalinks etc, heck for a while they were ahead of the RAF Tornado F3!).
The F-4 would not amke a good 3rd world fighter it simply uses far too much fuel and needs too much in the way of infrastructure.


You're right. I was actually thinking of the F-5 when I said that.

You are also right about Germany, Turkey and Greece still flying the F-4. If memory serves, Iran, Egypt, Spain, Korea and Japan still fly the F-4, too (in fact, the last F-4 ever made was built under license by Mitsubishi in 1981). Israel retired their F-4s, though, last year.

As for the F-4 those still in service aren't used by 3rd world nations but by germany, greece, turkey and possibly Isreal (i can't remeber if they finally retired thiers), although only germany still uses it in an Air to Air role as a stop gap for the Typhoon, mind you the german fighter version are still pretty nasty with thier latest upgrades (AMRAAM, datalinks etc, heck for a while they were ahead of the RAF Tornado F3!).
The F-4 would not amke a good 3rd world fighter it simply uses far too much fuel and needs too much in the way of infrastructure.

Don't forget Japan. They fly a modified version of the F-4.

I didn't forget Japan. ;)

You are also right about Germany, Turkey and Greece still flying the F-4. If memory serves, Iran, Egypt, Spain, Korea and Japan still fly the F-4, too (in fact, the last F-4 ever made was built under license by Mitsubishi in 1981). Israel retired their F-4s, though, last year.

Sorry. I typed my last reply while you posted yours. ;)

The one that REALLY takes the cake is Antonov A40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AntonovA40.jpg).

Yep, it was a flying tank. Literally.
ROFLMAO²!!!
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/kt-40-1.jpg