The Aircraft Image Posting Contest

[Michael]

that just cos our pilots are so hard core.....and apparently slightly suicidal

[Trantor]

that just cos our pilots are so hard core.....and apparently slightly suicidal

Yup, Operation Black Buck. Improvisation at its very best.

[GeoModder]

Did somebody mention suicidal piloting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3rR8OIk ... r_embedded

[TrashMan]

that just cos our pilots are so hard core.....and apparently slightly suicidal

Yup, Operation Black Buck. Improvisation at its very best.

Dat Refueling plan! Ouch! Hurts jsut to look at it!


With that said. Best airplane of all time. ALL TIME:

[Trantor]

that just cos our pilots are so hard core.....and apparently slightly suicidal

Yup, Operation Black Buck. Improvisation at its very best.

Dat Refueling plan! Ouch! Hurts jsut to look at it!

It´s great! Great Britain!

With that said. Best airplane of all time. ALL TIME:

Suddenly i hear the voice of Kanye West??

One engine out - merry-go-round.

[Karst45]

With that said. Best airplane of all time. ALL TIME:

Gentlement, i present you The mother of all planes!!!

admit it! you cant deny it

[Nemo]

One engine out - merry-go-round.

With engines that reliable? Never happen.

[Trantor]

Gentlement, i present you The mother of all planes!!!

admit it! you cant deny it

Well...

[TrashMan]

One engine out - merry-go-round.

Where do you get that? The F-14 can fly/land with one engine. It's a very stable craft.


The F-14 has even flown and landed safely with an asymmetrical wing-sweep even on an aircraft carrier during emergencies.[28]

Two triangular shaped retractable surfaces, called glove vanes, were originally mounted in the forward part of the wing glove, and could be automatically extended by the flight control system at high Mach numbers. They were used to generate additional lift ahead of the aircraft's center of gravity, thus helping to compensate for the nose-down pitching tendencies at supersonic speeds. Automatically deployed at above Mach 1.4, they allowed the F-14 to pull 7.5 g at Mach 2 and could be manually extended with wings swept full aft

[javcs]

One engine out - merry-go-round.

Where do you get that? The F-14 can fly/land with one engine. It's a very stable craft.


The F-14 has even flown and landed safely with an asymmetrical wing-sweep even on an aircraft carrier during emergencies.[28]

Two triangular shaped retractable surfaces, called glove vanes, were originally mounted in the forward part of the wing glove, and could be automatically extended by the flight control system at high Mach numbers. They were used to generate additional lift ahead of the aircraft's center of gravity, thus helping to compensate for the nose-down pitching tendencies at supersonic speeds. Automatically deployed at above Mach 1.4, they allowed the F-14 to pull 7.5 g at Mach 2 and could be manually extended with wings swept full aft

Indeed. That's one of the reasons why it has two engines - if one engine goes down, you can still get back to your carrier, rather than needing to ditch in the middle of the ocean, nowhere near your battlegroup, and run the risk of not being found.
Though I think the Navy and the Air Force often don't agree on having two engines, though.

[Trantor]

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

http://www.panix.com/~baldwin/hultgreen_mir.txt

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-loss-st.htm

22% overall losses mostly due to one engine out is unacceptable imho.
Due to the widely separated engines there were harsh restrictions to the flight envelope in case of one engine out.

[Fotiadis_110]

I must say i find it highly amusing to note a minor addon to one of my posts earlier started a major debate regarding my favorite plane.

And when it comes to dog-fighting, the A-10 surprises most jet fighters by turning on a dime and aiming their main cannon at them faster than the jet fighter can get their own gun pointed at them.
Also, if my understanding is correct, it can happily laugh at a single sidewinder, because of their 'aoe' explosion characteristics, chances are the sidewinder will beat up the wings and deal insignificant damage to it's engines.

Longer ranged more explosive missiles however are a different matter <_<

As for 'first aircraft' may i direct you to this man?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse

Funny what a guy tinkering in his shed can build before anyone else. (specifically a monoplane with working control surfaces)

Also: i suspect a 'modern' A-10 would still be built to hold that all impressive cannon, but they might also have an 'alternate fitting' weapon platform with a machine gun for air support of concealed allies (say guys stuck in a house under attack) and a cannon for heavier jobs (say blowing up guys hiding inside the house).
But honestly i dunno if having 2 crew would help as much as we'd like, for starters if you kept the crew to 1 you could retain their titanium bathtub and save money.
Everyone knows politicians love to save money. (and then blow it elsewhere -_-)

[Nemo]

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

http://www.panix.com/~baldwin/hultgreen_mir.txt

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-loss-st.htm

22% overall losses mostly due to one engine out is unacceptable imho.
Due to the widely separated engines there were harsh restrictions to the flight envelope in case of one engine out.

F-14As had trouble because of the P&W TF30 engine's reliability, and lack thereof. Other than that, there were some unexpected interactions with things like compressor stalls from firing missiles only in certain maneuvers. High G outs/stalls aren't pretty, but a few bleed doors later and the problem was solved.





On the a-10 f-35 issue, I can say only one thing. Ardvark.

[Absalom]

And when it comes to dog-fighting, the A-10 surprises most jet fighters by turning on a dime and aiming their main cannon at them faster than the jet fighter can get their own gun pointed at them.
Also, if my understanding is correct, it can happily laugh at a single sidewinder, because of their 'aoe' explosion characteristics, chances are the sidewinder will beat up the wings and deal insignificant damage to it's engines.

Unfortunately, the time when you're most likely to run into hostile air-craft is while establishing air-superiority. If the enemy's capabilities are primitive enough, then the A-10 may well be a viable anti-aircraft platform, but that's unlikely to happen (if nothing else, fighters such as the F-22 will probably clear out everything while the A-10s are en-route to the theater; in those cases even the F-35 could probably be used as an air-superiority fighter). Even if it does, you'll probably be dealing with a variety of missles, instead of only Sidewinder-analogues.

The other alternative mostly revolves around helicopters, where the A-10 is on the other side of the speed-vs-turning relationship.

[NOMAD]

Argh, the Tomcat was my favorite too, I shed a when it was retired from service ( with the usual " why the beep did have to retire such an excellent planet etc etc etc").

while true,that every aircraft has its "quarks", the F-14 was a fleet defence fighter, part missile platform part dogfighter, that emerged from the post-Vietnam experience ( tactical and strategic thinking that missile would reduce dogfighting to WWI or WWII, hehe the same was said before and proofed incorrect ah the planner never learn do they). The wide engine spacing allowed and stable carrier landing/takeoff, while allowing a large missile load (and to accommodate the large Phoenix missile with their 100+ mile range). The swing wings was the "latest" development is high-g dogfighting (and adopted by the other countries with various craft IE Su-22/24 series, MiG 23 and 27 models). In the end, like the F-4, the Tomcat was getting old and the navy had changes its mission ( IE more multi role aircraft models (or in the US navy case the Super Hornet family) and less worried about air attack on aircraft carriers).

haaaa, at least I still have Top Gun to remember those days.

but its interesting how old planes are given new live ( IE the A-10 that has been discussed) just look at the C-5M Super Galaxy's, 40 years and still going. B-52s, largely still flying after 50-60 years and going strong for 2040's (that means pilot who will be flying in 2035 with be flying planes that are as old as their grand-parents). A-10 D or E or F anyone ?

[Arioch]

I'm really glad that modern US fighters are armed with guns and have excellent dogfighting capabilities... it shows that we actually learned something from the Vietnam War... but I think the real learning experience from Vietnam was in diplomacy and in military self-destruction (read: "rules of engagement"). I think the odds that dogfights will be common in any near-future conflict are pretty close to zero.

I don't want to sound like the global Pollyana here... but if democratization and globalization continues on its current vector, I don't see that the (planetary surface) arms race necessarily needs to continue in the way that it has for the last 100 years. In an asymmetrical battlefield, 60-year-old B-52's drop modern JDAM's just as well as trillion-dollar B-2's. 40-year-old A-10's will be just as effective at their jobs as any new version of the same low-tech gun-in-your-face design would be. And at a much lower price point. We are not facing massive Soviet tank forces or Backfire-launched cruise missile threats the way we did in the Cold War.

No one knows what future threats may bring, but for the foreseeable future, Air Superiority is King. That's why it disturbs me that the US abandoned the F-22 for the cheaper F-35... because ground attack is irrelevant... it can be done by frigging drones... but air superiority is key. And the US has abandoned the best air superiority fighter ever developed (the F-22) in favor of a cheaper plane that's not any better than what the other guy would have.

[fredgiblet]

And when it comes to dog-fighting, the A-10 surprises most jet fighters by turning on a dime and aiming their main cannon at them faster than the jet fighter can get their own gun pointed at them.

And so the enemy fighters would simply employ boom-and-zoom tactics using vastly superior speed, acceleration and climb rate.

Also, if my understanding is correct, it can happily laugh at a single sidewinder, because of their 'aoe' explosion characteristics, chances are the sidewinder will beat up the wings and deal insignificant damage to it's engines.

Not "laugh at", more "survive". An A-10 that loses an engine can get back to base, but it will NOT be in a good spot since it will have lost half it's already not terribly impressive thrust.

B-52s, largely still flying after 50-60 years and going strong for 2040's (that means pilot who will be flying in 2035 with be flying planes that are as old as their grand-parents).

I've heard that there are already pilots flying the exact same B-52 that their grandfathers flew.

[TrashMan]

22% overall losses mostly due to one engine out is unacceptable imho.

That is why they upgraded it. B and D variants use a different engine.

[TrashMan]

Argh, the Tomcat was my favorite too, I shed a when it was retired from service ( with the usual " why the beep did have to retire such an excellent planet etc etc etc").

I'm still pissed at Dick for rejecting Super Tomacat 21. And I'm not even american.

[Trantor]

Argh, the Tomcat was my favorite too, I shed a when it was retired from service ( with the usual " why the beep did have to retire such an excellent planet etc etc etc").

I'm still pissed at Dick for rejecting Super Tomacat 21. And I'm not even american.

You want a fast sweep wing F/A with lotsa payload including nukes and good capabilities in dogfight and in fast ultra-low-level-flight in difficult terrain?
Buy Panavia Tornado! It has RR/MTU-engines AND Messerschmidt-Genes - you can´t have it any better!