Rookie120 0 #51 December 8, 2009 Any man who served in Vietnam on the ground should smile when they seen this bad boy lurkin above them. I love this plane. I love the old Corsair but there has always been something about this bird that I love. The amount of ass whoopin it can haul. It's ability to lurk above for long periods of time and the ability to get in low and slow to hit what needed to be killed. My dad also has a special place in his heart for these guys. When he needed help those men were happy to lay down some whoop ass. Here's to you! THE SKYRAIDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.airliners.net/photo/Douglas-A-1D-Skyraider/1555862/L/&sid=2829ffdcdfc00b41b78c3a57dc0f62f0If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d16842 0 #52 December 8, 2009 QuoteIn fact, the reason the F-111 had side-by-side seating was to make it short enough for carrier ops. The whole project started when someone got the idea that a single a/c could serve both as an USAF bomber, and a Navy fighter. The Navy finally extricated its self from the project and left it all to USAF. Exactly... someone got that idea. Which takes us up to the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is supposed to fight, bomb, attack, do regular, short, and vertical take offs and landings (different versions I admit), be stealthy, serve every military in the world, naval and land, and fit the seating height of 95% of the population. Add to that list about 1,000 other significant design compromises. The JSF program was designed to replace the U.S. military's F-16, A-10, F/A-18, AV-8B, A6's already out of the inventory, the British Tornado, and several other foreign aircraft. This list includes small and large aircraft with an incredible range of missions. The JSF is very large, along the lines of an F105. That must play into carrier operations, but I leave that discussion to the squids who know about it. It is quite expensive, at least compared to the aircraft it replaces, even accounting for inflation. Frighteningly, it is the only strike aircraft publicly known to be in the development pipeline for the US, one decades long. It has a problematic single engine, (how well do you swim Navy?) likely to be manufactured by a single manufacturer (no great engine war to reduce costs), so the entire national fleet could be grounded at once by an engine design or manufacturing problem. Anybody want to bet on the chances of all this coming together well?Tom B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #53 December 8, 2009 The ones on an aircraft had stellite lined bbls and were designated M3 or AN-2 which describes them as being made for a high cyclic rate and aircraft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #54 December 8, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat Because it's an independent badass that has BVR systems standard with the AC and power steering. Beyond Visual Range Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #55 December 8, 2009 Lets not forget the MiG31F flown as it should be it was hard to hit because you had to catch it first. If you don't mind hauling ass on the deck, then popping up at full afterburn to max ceiling and then doing a boom and zoom. Service ceiling and speed were the criteria for that engagement. QuoteAirframe and engines MiG-31 'Foxhound' in flight The wings and airframe of the MiG-31 are stronger than those of the MiG-25, permitting supersonic flight at low altitudes. Its Aviadvigatel D30-F6 turbofans, rated at 34,000 lbf thrust, (also described as "bypass turbojets" due to the low bypass ratio) allow a maximum speed of Mach 1.23 at low altitude. High-altitude speed is temperature-redlined to Mach 2.83 — the thrust-to-drag ratio is sufficient for speeds in excess of Mach 3, but such speeds pose unacceptable hazards to engine and airframe life in routine use. The service ceiling is wrong on this plane. The MiG25 and MiG31 are both capable of extremely high flight. There used to be a service in Russia where you could pay to taken above 100k feet (125K IIRC) Flown on a paraboloic trajectory http://www.incredible-adventures.com/edgeofspace.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #56 December 8, 2009 Quote Any man who served in Vietnam on the ground should smile when they seen this bad boy lurkin above them. I love this plane. I love the old Corsair but there has always been something about this bird that I love. The amount of ass whoopin it can haul. It's ability to lurk above for long periods of time and the ability to get in low and slow to hit what needed to be killed. My dad also has a special place in his heart for these guys. When he needed help those men were happy to lay down some whoop ass. Here's to you! THE SKYRAIDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.airliners.net/photo/Douglas-A-1D-Skyraider/1555862/L/&sid=2829ffdcdfc00b41b78c3a57dc0f62f0 Agreed w/r/t the vietnam vets. My dad was a ranger in Pleiku in '65 and '66. He still tells stories of the skyraiders and the original "Puff the Magic Dragon" being the reason on more than one occasion he is alive today, subsequently allowing me to be here to debate with you lovely ladies and gents He loved those planes, has a couple slides of em over there. I'll have to email him that pic.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DavidB 0 #57 December 8, 2009 Sorry, the only plane that I think deserves to be called GREAT is the DC3. Been around for what, 70 years now? When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #58 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuote...I present to you possibly the finest bomber for a 40 year period and none was ever faster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler With four J-58's it was certainly capable of exceeding mach 3 . The ejection capsule was pretty cool, enabling egress at 70k ft. and Mach 3. Here's an interesting tidbit that I came across..."Unlike standard ejection seats of the period, a protective clamshell would enclose the seat and the control stick with an attached oxygen bottle. In an unusual test program, live bears and chimpanzees were successfully used to test the ejection system." Now that would have been an interesting test program. Kevin ............................................................................................ Imagine the poor recovery crew faced with a very live, very angry bear! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #59 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuote The ejection capsule was pretty cool, enabling egress at 70k ft. and Mach 3. Here's an interesting tidbit that I came across..."Unlike standard ejection seats of the period, a protective clamshell would enclose the seat and the control stick with an attached oxygen bottle. In an unusual test program, live bears and chimpanzees were successfully used to test the ejection system." Now that would have been an interesting test program. Kevin Imagine the poor recovery crew faced with a very live, very angry bear! The bears were drugged."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #60 December 8, 2009 Quoteanother fine aircraft killed by the government (Canada) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow sorry can't get the clicky to work ........................................................................................... Nice numbers, but you also have to consider the number built and how much damage it did to the enemy. One of the Avro Arrow's problems was that it was one of first airplanes designed with a 5,000 pound hydraulic system, that leaked like a sieve! It took the Americans a few more decades to learn how to contain that much pressure in the B-2 bomber. We would have had to wait for the Avro Arrow Mark 3 or Mark 4 before it was a serious threat to the Russians. Meanwhile, I suggest you consider another Toronto-built airplane as the Greatest: DeHavilland's Mosquito bomber, night-fighter, photo-recon, air-liner, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #61 December 8, 2009 Yes, the F-104 was built in the thousands and kept the Communist hordes at bay for decades. Many years ago, I helped wrap up the last few Royal Canadian Air Force CF-104s and send them to Turkey. One of my colleagues had - earlier - served as a rifle-toting UN Peace-Keeper in Cypres and his opinion of the turks was not very high. So he stenciled a Greek flag to inside of every panel before screwing it shut! Hah! Hah!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites