Greatest engineering feat has to be the SR-71. I still cannot believe to this day that it was designed with sliderules and paper.
As for nextgen planes, I can't believe nobody's mentioned Boeing's bid for the JSF.
JSF, one mean little machine
I saw a full-size mockup of this thing. It's tiny. Plus, it's got a nice glass cockpit.
[edit] Last I heard about it's stealth capability, it has the radar signature of a bird.
As for nextgen planes, I can't believe nobody's mentioned Boeing's bid for the JSF.
JSF, one mean little machine
I saw a full-size mockup of this thing. It's tiny. Plus, it's got a nice glass cockpit.
[edit] Last I heard about it's stealth capability, it has the radar signature of a bird.
<< Even then, if it has not expended the phoenix' by the time it gets back to the carrier, it has to jettison them. >>
why is that? and i'm pretty sure the F-14D's had added pylons so that 8 Pheonixe's could be loaded. i may be wrong
Another vote for the Superhornet. An F-16 will NOT slaughter one. In fact, F/A-18Es can match or best an F-16 in many areas of the flight envelope.
My vote for next-gen plane would be the "Switchblade" thing Popular Science reported on in some issue recently. That is, of course, assuming it's real, which it may very well not be.
My vote for next-gen plane would be the "Switchblade" thing Popular Science reported on in some issue recently. That is, of course, assuming it's real, which it may very well not be.
Another vote for the F4 Phantom. I loved to watch them launch off the carrier, both engines on afterburners, shooting 20ft of flame, and screaming loud enough to blow your ears out.
I couldn't believe my eyes when they used Phantoms to play to role of MIGs in the Iron Eagle movie, talk about loosing credibility! The phantom may be the most identifiable plane of its era
I couldn't believe my eyes when they used Phantoms to play to role of MIGs in the Iron Eagle movie, talk about loosing credibility! The phantom may be the most identifiable plane of its era
guess it's all been mentioned from migs to f-18s. i gotta say i like all planes. i've been an enthusaiast since i have been a kid in grade school after going to my first air show. planes are the greatest engineering feat by man.
I like the sleekness of the B1B Lancer bomber but being a fan of the movie Top Gun....The F-14D Tomcat rules!!!
dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
The Supercrusader. Faster and more agile than the F-4. A major improvement on an existing design that fell prey to dirty politics and business practices. Unfortunately, that story also occurred for my two next favourite planes, the Tigershark (successor to the Freedom fighter) and the Lancer (successor to the Starfighter). The planes I like tend not to get bought.
Crap I hate it when politics interfere into military purchases.
Cry (Godley & Creme)
Crap I hate it when politics interfere into military purchases.
Cry (Godley & Creme)
Ever since I first got a model of one years ago, I've been fascinated by the B-1B Lancer. As for fighter jets, I like the SU-37. I saw a documentary about the SU-27 and SU-37 on the discovery channel and was imnpressed by what they showed.
The Stigenator
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 15,216
- 3
- 81
As a son of an Aerospace Engineer I have come to appreciate certain aircrafts for what they are:
*random order*
Harrier JumJet
Sukhoi SU30MKI
LockHeed Martin SR 71
BlackBird
Airbus A320 -> first fly-by-wire baby - got to fly in one.
Boeing 737-600 & Boeing 747-400
MIG-29F
MIG-25
MIG-21
Saab Viggen
BA Concorde
Columbia Shuttle
Dassult 2000
EuroFighter 2000
B52 Bomber
B1 Bomber
B2 Bomber - Flying Wing
F/A 18 Hornet - took a beating in the gulf war.
Gulfstream V
... several others.. but I am going to have to hit the sack.
TGG
*random order*
Harrier JumJet
Sukhoi SU30MKI
LockHeed Martin SR 71
BlackBird
Airbus A320 -> first fly-by-wire baby - got to fly in one.
Boeing 737-600 & Boeing 747-400
MIG-29F
MIG-25
MIG-21
Saab Viggen
BA Concorde
Columbia Shuttle
Dassult 2000
EuroFighter 2000
B52 Bomber
B1 Bomber
B2 Bomber - Flying Wing
F/A 18 Hornet - took a beating in the gulf war.
Gulfstream V
... several others.. but I am going to have to hit the sack.
TGG
atom, you beat me to it. Stealth aside, su-37 by a long shot. Why?
Reason1
Reason 2
Reason 3 (thrust vectoring)
All of the Su-27 series of aircraft are really sexy
Reason1
Reason 2
Reason 3 (thrust vectoring)
All of the Su-27 series of aircraft are really sexy
Toph99,
The Phoenix's each way over a thousand pounds, and the F-14 already weighs well over 50,000lbs. It would crush the undercarriage of the F-14, or be too much for the arrestors on the carrier.
Datafly
As for the Super Hornet beating an F-16C...Right...it ain't gonna happen. The F/A-18E looks like a bloody pig of a plane. It has better acceleration than the F/A-18C, but agility wise...you stack on weight, you can't expect it to out handle it's predecessor. I hear it's virtually spin proof, but hell..it's still a pig. This is exactly the same reason why a F-16A would have the edge in a dogfight against the F-16Cs
dennilfloss said:
<< The Supercrusader. Faster and more agile than the F-4. A major improvement on an existing design that fell prey to dirty politics and business practices. Unfortunately, that story also occurred for my two next favourite planes, the Tigershark (successor to the Freedom fighter) and the Lancer (successor to the Starfighter). The planes I like tend not to get bought >>
While the F-8 Crusader was a fantastic dogfighter, it was just outclassed by the multi-role F-4. The Super Crusader looked fab on paper, but with the F-4 improving, and teen series fighters out on the horizon...what's the need for a rehash(I won't dis the Crusader, it's a great plane)?
Killbat,
The SR-71 will always live on as the symbol of superiority for the USA. It did whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted until just a decade ago. In a rumored demonstration, multiple MiG-31 Foxhounds displayed that they could indeed intercept the SR-71. After that, the United States put the plane to rest.
SuperTool,
Thrust Vectoring was used on the F-15 technology demonstrator a couple of years ago. They showed marked improvements in performance and agility, but was said to be pointless if all F-15s were retrofitted with thrust vectoring.
the_good_guy,
What's a MiG-29F? I recall the MiG-29 A, C, M, S, SMT, but I do not recall the MiG-29F. Are you thinking of the Luftwaffe's MiG-29?
All Flanker fans,
Your favorite plane learned all it's moves from the X-31 technology demonstrator. A loaded down Flanker can't possibly do all that. That's not to say that the Flanker is an amazing plane. The Raptor ownz joo!
How about the Century series fighters? Damn...the F-106 has to my favorite Century Series plane...also, I've always loved the A-5 Vigilante and B-58 Hustler. SO many cool planes back then. I think the worst plane the U.S had to have produced was the F-89 and Buffalo. Yuck!
Paul
The Phoenix's each way over a thousand pounds, and the F-14 already weighs well over 50,000lbs. It would crush the undercarriage of the F-14, or be too much for the arrestors on the carrier.
Datafly
As for the Super Hornet beating an F-16C...Right...it ain't gonna happen. The F/A-18E looks like a bloody pig of a plane. It has better acceleration than the F/A-18C, but agility wise...you stack on weight, you can't expect it to out handle it's predecessor. I hear it's virtually spin proof, but hell..it's still a pig. This is exactly the same reason why a F-16A would have the edge in a dogfight against the F-16Cs
dennilfloss said:
<< The Supercrusader. Faster and more agile than the F-4. A major improvement on an existing design that fell prey to dirty politics and business practices. Unfortunately, that story also occurred for my two next favourite planes, the Tigershark (successor to the Freedom fighter) and the Lancer (successor to the Starfighter). The planes I like tend not to get bought >>
While the F-8 Crusader was a fantastic dogfighter, it was just outclassed by the multi-role F-4. The Super Crusader looked fab on paper, but with the F-4 improving, and teen series fighters out on the horizon...what's the need for a rehash(I won't dis the Crusader, it's a great plane)?
Killbat,
The SR-71 will always live on as the symbol of superiority for the USA. It did whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted until just a decade ago. In a rumored demonstration, multiple MiG-31 Foxhounds displayed that they could indeed intercept the SR-71. After that, the United States put the plane to rest.
SuperTool,
Thrust Vectoring was used on the F-15 technology demonstrator a couple of years ago. They showed marked improvements in performance and agility, but was said to be pointless if all F-15s were retrofitted with thrust vectoring.
the_good_guy,
What's a MiG-29F? I recall the MiG-29 A, C, M, S, SMT, but I do not recall the MiG-29F. Are you thinking of the Luftwaffe's MiG-29?
All Flanker fans,
Your favorite plane learned all it's moves from the X-31 technology demonstrator. A loaded down Flanker can't possibly do all that. That's not to say that the Flanker is an amazing plane. The Raptor ownz joo!
How about the Century series fighters? Damn...the F-106 has to my favorite Century Series plane...also, I've always loved the A-5 Vigilante and B-58 Hustler. SO many cool planes back then. I think the worst plane the U.S had to have produced was the F-89 and Buffalo. Yuck!
Paul
The SR-71
It's the highest flying fastest recon jet ever and I have loved seeing it take off from Kadena since 1968. We called it the Habu. It would take take off using 1/2 to 2/3 of the runway,then as soon as airborn,straight up into the clouds. Amazing piece of hardware.
For my cruising pleasure a little 99 MPH aircoupe will do.
It's the highest flying fastest recon jet ever and I have loved seeing it take off from Kadena since 1968. We called it the Habu. It would take take off using 1/2 to 2/3 of the runway,then as soon as airborn,straight up into the clouds. Amazing piece of hardware.
For my cruising pleasure a little 99 MPH aircoupe will do.
I wanna see F-22 dogfight a SU-37. Someone should arrange a fake dogfight with lasers or whatever the hell they use in Top Gun. I would be willing to see this on pay-per-view.
SuperGroove,
The following is from a Superhornet test pilot:
<<
Myth #3 ? "Then, bigger means less maneuverable." Fact ? "In the subsonic regime, the E/F performs as good as or better than a C/D in almost every respect." The challenge posed to the contractor was not to compromise the Hornet?s superb capabilities as a dogfighter. "As good as, or better than..." was the standard to meet. The result is that the turning performance charts overlay one another. At high angles of attack, the E/F?s agility truly shines, with superior roll performance and much more carefree handling.
The heritage Hornet was already the stand-out, high angle-of-attack (alpha) machine in the U.S. inventory. The E/F is "hands-down" superior in that environment. As of the end of July, the test program had completed the high-alpha and spin programs on the E-models for all symmetric loads, and on the F-model for fighter and centerline loadings. Lateral asymmetries and F-model stores testing are in progress.
There will be no angle-of-attack restrictions for the symmetrically loaded E or F models. Spin characteristics are benign, with a simplified recovery compared with that of the C/D, and no sustained falling-leaf departure exists in any stores loading tested.
My last flight in the E/F was in aircraft E4, loaded with three 480-gallon tanks and 4 Mk 83 bombs, and with the center of gravity ballasted to the aft limit of 31.8 percent. In that configuration, the airplane maneuvered without restriction from -30 to +50 degrees AOA, performed zero airspeed tailslides and spins to 120 degrees per second of yaw rate, and unsuccessfully attempted to generate a stable falling-leaf departure. We?ve engineered out all the known departure modes for rolls up to 360 degrees.
The air combat maneuvering (ACM) flights have revealed that the airplane may still be maneuvered at speeds as low as 80 KCAS. This airplane will be quite comfortable in any type of a "phone booth" close-in dogfight.
Agility, however, should really be considered in terms of the lethality of the complete weapons system. While thrust vectoring is maturing at a pace that might have allowed incorporation into the E/F, the weight and complexity penalties were prohibitive. Instead, adding the Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (HMCS) and a highly maneuverable off-boresight missile (AIM-9X) generates E/F total-system lethality that exceeds that available from a much more agile airplane with current missiles. HMCS and AIM-9X will enter the Fleet in 2001 and 2002, respectively. >>
I don't it's fair to count the F-16 as one of these "much more agile airplane," however, because it will also probably carry the AIM-9X Sidewinder.
The following is from a Superhornet test pilot:
<<
Myth #3 ? "Then, bigger means less maneuverable." Fact ? "In the subsonic regime, the E/F performs as good as or better than a C/D in almost every respect." The challenge posed to the contractor was not to compromise the Hornet?s superb capabilities as a dogfighter. "As good as, or better than..." was the standard to meet. The result is that the turning performance charts overlay one another. At high angles of attack, the E/F?s agility truly shines, with superior roll performance and much more carefree handling.
The heritage Hornet was already the stand-out, high angle-of-attack (alpha) machine in the U.S. inventory. The E/F is "hands-down" superior in that environment. As of the end of July, the test program had completed the high-alpha and spin programs on the E-models for all symmetric loads, and on the F-model for fighter and centerline loadings. Lateral asymmetries and F-model stores testing are in progress.
There will be no angle-of-attack restrictions for the symmetrically loaded E or F models. Spin characteristics are benign, with a simplified recovery compared with that of the C/D, and no sustained falling-leaf departure exists in any stores loading tested.
My last flight in the E/F was in aircraft E4, loaded with three 480-gallon tanks and 4 Mk 83 bombs, and with the center of gravity ballasted to the aft limit of 31.8 percent. In that configuration, the airplane maneuvered without restriction from -30 to +50 degrees AOA, performed zero airspeed tailslides and spins to 120 degrees per second of yaw rate, and unsuccessfully attempted to generate a stable falling-leaf departure. We?ve engineered out all the known departure modes for rolls up to 360 degrees.
The air combat maneuvering (ACM) flights have revealed that the airplane may still be maneuvered at speeds as low as 80 KCAS. This airplane will be quite comfortable in any type of a "phone booth" close-in dogfight.
Agility, however, should really be considered in terms of the lethality of the complete weapons system. While thrust vectoring is maturing at a pace that might have allowed incorporation into the E/F, the weight and complexity penalties were prohibitive. Instead, adding the Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (HMCS) and a highly maneuverable off-boresight missile (AIM-9X) generates E/F total-system lethality that exceeds that available from a much more agile airplane with current missiles. HMCS and AIM-9X will enter the Fleet in 2001 and 2002, respectively. >>
I don't it's fair to count the F-16 as one of these "much more agile airplane
What is the pilot supposed to say? That it sucks? Paul Metz is the ONLY pilot to have flown the YF-23 and YF-22...when asked which plane was better he smirked, and gave no reply.
Somethings are just with-held from the public.
Paul
Somethings are just with-held from the public.
Paul
My point was that the E/F is more maneuverable than the C/D, which was able to hold its own against an F-16. It was NOT more agile, but it wasn't easily killed. The E/F is closer to being on par with the F-16, and beats it in some performance measurements.
I rather have a fleet of boeing 747-400's or 777's than fighters anyday. why jetliners, you can start an airline and possibly make money. you can't legally own military planes or make money off of them unless you lease them to the iraquis or something.
<< I rather have a fleet of boeing 747-400's or 777's than fighters anyday. why jetliners, you can start an airline and possibly make money. you can't legally own military planes or make money off of them unless you lease them to the iraquis or something >>
Gah!
Do you know how much it would cost to maintain them???
I remember one bolt for an
<< armrest >>
cost $3!!
An apu for a 767 costs about a half million
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter