Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
4/25/2017 7:42:44 PM
Posted: 5/14/2002 10:21:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:25:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:37:43 AM EDT
Cool Man
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:46:51 AM EDT
Those are some nice pics!
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:49:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:50:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:52:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:12:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:15:04 AM EDT
BEAUTY...EH?...........[:D]
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:19:29 AM EDT
Thanks for the pics. The only thing better than looking at old planes is watching them fly!
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:50:58 AM EDT
Some of the coolest looking fighters to me are the F4 Phantom, A-10, F16 and the F5 (& F20 Tigershark).
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 12:09:06 PM EDT
Yep, Kevin, the A-10 rocks.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 12:28:14 PM EDT
Actually, the KC135 is based on the Boeing 707 airframe. The Boeing 717 is the new name for the McDonald-Douglas MD80-MD95 series of passenger aircraft. The name changed after Boeing bought McDonald-Douglas. Vulcan94
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 12:36:46 PM EDT
Cool pics! I love military aviation...almost as much as I like military style firearms! Hehe. Anyway, the top pics that you asked what were, is the B-52 Bomber...which has been in service since the late 1950's! This is probably one of the older designations as only the G and H models remain in service. They can be recognized by the vertical tail....it is shorter on the G and H models.Also looks like the tail of the craft keeps the 4 .50 cal machine guns. I think the newer ones have a larger cannon such as a 20mm in place of these. It has been said these magnificant planes will probably remain in service until the year 2040! I bet they keep em in the air until they reach 100 years old. That would be a first. They still make a great platform for launching cruise missiles and can haul a crapper full of dumb ordnance....I think as many as 84-500 lb bombs in the internal bomb bay and on wing pilons. A great plane. These used to do low level flights over my home in the 1970's and 1980's, but stopped and never resumed after the 1991 Gulf War. I miss them. The F-105 along with the F-4 flew the majority of missions over North Vietnam during the war. The 105 was not a maneuverable aircraft when compared to the MIG 17''s,19's and 21's.....but the damn thing was fast! And it was tough for the communists to shoot enough lead into it to bring em down. Tough jets. The .50 caliber gatlin gun you refered to is actually an M61 Vulcan......a six barrel 20mm gatling gun! They are still used on modern fighters such as the F-15 and F-16. Most of those jets were used in Vietnam in some form or other. The Canberra was used quite a bit, especially early in the confict. The F-101 Voodoo saw some use as a recon aircraft. We all know what the B-52 did around Khe Sahn and during the Operation Linebacker missions. The Saber and B-29 saw action over Korea (as well as an improved version of the 29 designated the B-50). Some great planes there. Thanks for the pics.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 12:42:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Kevin: Some of the coolest looking fighters to me are the F4 Phantom, A-10, F16 and the F5 (& F20 Tigershark).
View Quote
My daddy used to fly the F4... awesome jet.. it was the do-all attack/fighter/bomber of Vietnam. I remember him telling me about when they tested the 20mm gun pods, before the F-4e. They mounted one on each wing, and one center fuselage, and fired all at the same time. Damn near stalled the plane! hehehe M@
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 1:09:09 PM EDT
IIRC, the "newest" B-52s don't have any tailgun at all. The whole thing was replaced w/ some kind of extended ECM or other elec./defensive pod.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 1:23:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 1:26:18 PM EDT by Stormbringer]
By far the BEST plane of the late 50s erra was the Avro Arrow!! [img]http://www.maverick2.com/gifs/AvroArrow/204prep_s.gif[/img] [img]http://www.maverick2.com/gifs/AvroArrow/201_ars4.gif[/img] Too bad it was canceled due to American Political Pressures..... It seems you guys did not like the idea of an Canadian Plane that flew circles around yours.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 1:26:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 1:27:33 PM EDT by wiggy762]
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: I am pretty sure that the Canberra isn't an American aircraft. We bought the plans and made American copies though. Would make sense that it is originally Australian.
View Quote
Actually, I think the Canberra is a British design that we produced licsensed copies of.
Try THIS on for trivia. The wings of the Canberra and the fuselage of the F-104 was mated to create the U-2.
View Quote
Are you absolutely sure on this one? Some Canberras had their wings stretched to almost twice the normal length for use as a high altitude reconnaisance aircraft. If you have a chance to compare photos of the U2 and the Canberra from above, you would see a distinct difference in the 'planform' of the wing, not to mention the fact that the Canberra's two engines were located in the wings and the U2's single engine was in the fuselage. You may be right on the F-104 Starfighter's fuselage being used as a template for the U2's fuselage as they were both Lockheed designs.
F-105 Thunderbolt, nicknamed "Thud"...because it made that sound as it hit the ground after being shot down.
View Quote
I had heard that description and another that said that 'THUD' was the sound the hydraulic system made just as it failed. This was one of the first aircraft that made extensive use of hydraulic activated control surfaces and although there were redundant systems installed, the collimnators(sp) were all located in the same place and one round could take them all out. There was no effective non-hydraulic back up system and when the pressure went to zero, the pilot had zero control. This scenario was the cause of most of the 105 shootdowns in SE Asia.
The F-86 and the MiG-15 were based on the same German jet research. The Russians stuck with the idea (of the fuselage being one big jet pipe) for quite a while. We did not.
View Quote
Hate to keep doing this but.... German aerodynamic design was limited by the underpowered jet engines of the time. This forced the German engineers to use multiple jets to achieve the needed thrust ratios. These engines were initially placed under, in, or even on top of the wings. A late war example of a 'peoples fighter' was mostly made of wood and had a single jet mounted above the fuselage in it's own nacelle. Germany did not produce, in any significant numbers, a fuselage embedded jet engined fighter in WW II. The most significant jet age advance that the German engineers developed was the 'swept' wing. As speeds neared the sound barrier, aerodynamic forces were found to be very strong along the leading edge of a straight wing. It was found that a wing swept to 45o would cause these forces to be halved at least and eliminated the compressability encountered by a straight wing at near Mach 1. The compression of air at the leading edge caused violent pressure waves to form and then travel down the chord of the wing. When these pressure waves made it to the trailing edge of the wing, where the control surfaces are, the action of these waves caused the controls to be 'frozen'. This compressability was responsible for many test pilot deaths and caused Chuck Yeager some consternation in his historic flights to break Mach 1. The probelm was solved in Glamourous Glennis by installing a more powerful servo in the pitch trim tab of the flying tail allowing pitch attitude to be controlled at near Mach 1. This compressability is eliminated past Mach 1.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 1:43:19 PM EDT
The Canberra was British we tested them and made a few changes (the British had side by side seating) and manufac. them here. A long wing version was produced to fill the role of high alt. recon. Still later a very long wing version was produced for even more altitude. It is said the last recon. version was real work to land because it simply did not want to come down at any speed above a stall. The wing design was not used on the U-2, that was an original design based on a sail plane wing. The F-105 was a bomber from the start and was not called the Thunderbolt thats a different plane. I believe it was called the Thunder Chief. In VN it was used with extremly heavy loads and engines were replaced with fair regularity. We literally wore them out over there flighting them. I have no clue why it was called the Thud but I thought it got that name before it went to VN.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 1:53:57 PM EDT
i spent 18 years working on the F4 Phantom, all 18 years were at USNAS Miramar Calif., i was one of those hot shot jet engine repair jockeys, the guy that gets to taxi the plane & run the engines in afterburner, most of the tyme tied down, but when i had to go to an AF Base to repair one of my downed planes i had to taxi test certain functions after replacing a major component..., flew back seat many tymes..., even Mach II......!! helluva thrill.., cat shots & arrested landings, more fun than an amusement park....... i had a URL to my squadron flying over SanDiego bay but lost it
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 1:54:56 PM EDT
Hi Wiggy, Generally, you are correct. Hoever, I think Doublefeed is referring to this experimental platform, IIRC, it never flew, but don't tell me you can't see the Sabrejet in these pictures: [img]http://visi.net/~djohnson/mmart/mm183-1.jpg[/img] [img]http://visi.net/~djohnson/mmart/mm183-8.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 2:05:03 PM EDT
Stormbringer, You sure that jet is a Canadian development? Looks like stolen plans to a French Mirage design to me! LMAO! Just kidding of course. Actually the jet looks like a cross between a Mig-23 and the old US F-102 and F-106 delta wing fighters. You have any of the fighter's capabilities, such as max speed, ceiling, rate of climb or anything? Some of the late 50's designs were very speedy, just wondering where this one stood. It was funny how nearly all late 50's designs utilized the delta wing design....until they found out that this violated some physics law related to aerodynamics. Funny how it worked fine up until then. LOL.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 2:23:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 2:29:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 2:31:30 PM EDT by wiggy762]
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: Hi Wiggy, Generally, you are correct. Hoever, I think Doublefeed is referring to this experimental platform, IIRC, it never flew, but don't tell me you can't see the Sabrejet in these pictures: [img]http://visi.net/~djohnson/mmart/mm183-1.jpg[/img] [img]http://visi.net/~djohnson/mmart/mm183-8.jpg[/img]
View Quote
You probably are right that there were several designs in the later stages of WW II. They all suffered from lack of dependable, high thrust, economical jet engines. This platform actually looks more like a MiG-15 with the T tail. If this design was waiting for an engine, and the Soviets got their hands on the blueprints, then they only needed a reliable high thrust jet to have a winning design! Oh yeah, the British government 'gave' several early Rolls-Royce engines to Stalin as a geature of peace and goodwill. In something like 16 months, the USSR flew the MiG-15 and stunned the free world. At time, we were having hell with the Aircomet powered by finicky Bell jets. England realized her boo-boo and quickly made the same Rolls-Royce engine available to the engineers at GE. The quickly came up with a good engine. At the same time, North American aviation was working on the successor to the Bell P-49 Aircomet, the P-86(later F-86) Saber jet. At some point in the designing stage, the change was made from a straight wing to a swept wing. In an interesting coincidence, both the MiG-15 and the F-86 used a 45o sweep and in the early models, basically the same engine. This engine similarity ended with the introduction of homegrown jet engines from both GE and Pratt and Whitney.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 2:29:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 2:46:30 PM EDT by Stormbringer]
Originally Posted By Charging_Handle: Stormbringer, You sure that jet is a Canadian development? Looks like stolen plans to a French Mirage design to me! LMAO! Just kidding of course. Actually the jet looks like a cross between a Mig-23 and the old US F-102 and F-106 delta wing fighters. You have any of the fighter's capabilities, such as max speed, ceiling, rate of climb or anything? Some of the late 50's designs were very speedy, just wondering where this one stood. It was funny how nearly all late 50's designs utilized the delta wing design....until they found out that this violated some physics law related to aerodynamics. Funny how it worked fine up until then. LOL.
View Quote
Nope it was ALL CANADIAN!! go here to learn more about this great plane... [url]www.exn.ca/flightdeck/arrow[/url] When our Feds canceled it the USA tried to buy all the demo models....however in their wisdom they were all destroyed. Oh we called it the CF-105. We replaced it with Bomarc Missles as planes were going to obsolete....?? These were then replaced with Voodooo. The French wanted to buy the Orenda Engines for their mirage fighters. edited to add that we have been reduced to THIS!! [img]http://www.arrow-alliance.com/images/RaysArrow-1.jpg[/img] In case you cannot tell...this is an Arrow made out of Molson Canadian Beer cans!!!
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 2:39:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 2:44:46 PM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 2:48:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 3:02:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 3:26:31 PM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]
If you ask me, and NOBODY did, this is one of the prettiest, most capable planes, not to mention the predecessor of all modern non fighter aircraft, ie swept wings and pylon mounted engines: [img]http://www.b-47.com/gallery/pic16/gallery16.html[/img] That link won't work, try this one [img]http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/boeing/images/b-47.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 3:08:27 PM EDT
Is that little red X supposed to be an Me-262?If not, what is it?[:D]
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 3:18:59 PM EDT
P-51D Mustang [img]http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap9.jpg[/img] Douglas SBD Dauntless [img]http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/SBD.jpg[/img] REPUBLIC P-47D "THUNDERBOLT [img]http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/p47.jpg[/img] I love old warbirds.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 3:20:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 3:22:30 PM EDT by kentstate4]
I like the harrier jump jet. my favorite plane or jet. But the american version of the british jet.not the junky british version that couldn't fly worth a crap.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 3:52:16 PM EDT
Yeah Kentstate. I like how we bought a plane that couldn't fly worth a crap and truned it into a versatile workhorse. Wait, why would we buy the rights to a plane that couldn't fly worth a crap?
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 3:58:16 PM EDT
I don't know I think the B-58 hustler is a pretty damn sexy aircraft. The Air Force had one on display at Chanute AFB IL when I was there but I never got any pics or I would post them... Fantom
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 4:05:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By kentstate4: I like the harrier jump jet. my favorite plane or jet. But the american version of the british jet.not the junky british version that couldn't fly worth a crap.
View Quote
Hmmm, I wonder how the Argentines feel about that junky British version that couldn't fly worth a crap.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 4:06:24 PM EDT
I like the old Douglas A-1 Skyraiders.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 4:26:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dragunov: At Ellison AFB there is a very nice display of bombers and fighters. This is actually Ellsworth AFB. Eilson is in Fairbanks AK. The white top -135 is an EC-135 that pulled alert for many years in SAC at the base as an airborne command post. All -135's have an ID plate that say "717", the original designation. Actually the first design number from Boeing was "Dash 80". The 707 has a slightly longer wingspan and full leading edge flaps, different fuselage cross section and other small diffrecnces. The 707 is used for E-3, Joint STARS, and VC-137 (the previous Air Force ONE)
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 4:27:15 PM EDT
The coolest looking plane? Has to be the B-2 bomber.I grew up in Warrensburg Missouri,its 5 miles from Whiteman AFB.Each day they did mock nuke drops on the little towns all around the base.When it banks in a turn it just looks like a little black slit in the sky too cool! QBANG
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 4:30:42 PM EDT
I grew up in the fighter jet capital of the world (St. Louis) and routinely got to see F4 Phantoms, F15 Eagles, F/A18 Hornets and AV8B Harriers do their thing. NEVER ceased to amaze me. I'll never forget that 4th of July in 1975 when McDonnell-Douglas trotted out those red, white & blue painted F15s for some high-speed flybys down the Mississippi River during the VP Fair. Whew! I've also had the opportunity to visit the aircraft museum at Castle AFB and have seen not only some of the same planes in the pictures here, but an SR-71 to boot! Who can build 'em better than we can? Nobody!! Most imtimidating-looking jet: 1) F15 2) F4 Prettiest (smooth lines) looking jet: 1)F16 2)F/A18 Clunkiest looking jet: 1) A-10 2)AV8B 3) U2 Yeah, yeah, I realize there are some planes in other countries arsenals that don't look too shabby either (Jaguar & Tornado, Mirage, SAAB and MIG29 for instance) but I confined my opinion to ours.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 8:01:33 PM EDT
when I saw the word "warplane" first thing to pop into my mind was [b]BIG RADIAL ENGINES[/b] [:)] one or two sound awesome, I could just imagine a hundred or more of these in formations.. Lets not forget the R-4360's! {shwing!}
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 9:09:33 PM EDT
I was at Ellsworth AFB last year while on my way to Wyoming. Nice collection. I never stood so close to a "Buff" before. Friggen huge! I was hoping to find a way into the cabin. No luck. I wish I had more time to spend there. You can take a tour of an old Minuteman missile silo.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 9:24:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: [img]http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/boeing/images/b-47.jpg[/img]
View Quote
So thats the B47, anyone have a pic of a B58 for reference? I always get those two confused. I think the Canberra was British developed & flown as the B57 by the USAF. NASA still flies a modified WB57 for research. It looks like a U2 I still think the F104 was one of the coolest looking fighters ever! I need to see if I can find a pic.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 9:44:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 9:54:11 PM EDT
Jackpot! [:D] [url]www.starfighters.nl[/url] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/cnatra%2Fdifron%2Ejpg[/img] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/cnatra%2Ff104%2Drefuel%2Ejpg[/img] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/cnatra%2Ff104a%2D15%2Ejpg[/img] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/cnatra%2Frs%2D04%2Ejpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:14:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 10:47:28 PM EDT by cnatra]
Originally Posted By dragunov: B-58..isn't that the delta wing bomber?
View Quote
Yep [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/cnatra%2Fb8072b3w%2Ejpg[/img] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/cnatra%2Fplane1%2Ejpg[/img] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/cnatra%2Fb58%2D1%2Ejpg[/img] another interesting site[url]www.aviation-history.com[/url]
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 12:11:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2002 12:27:04 AM EDT by blkbeard]
All this warplane talk makes me want to hop in the car and head down to the USAF Museum. Anybody planning on going to the Dayton airshow in July? [url]http://www.daytonairshow.com/[/url] Edited to say...nevermind, looks like they're going to go overboard on the security and B.S. rules this year......no pocket knives, no coolers, body cavity searches.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 5:41:47 AM EDT
I hate to be too picky, going back to the first pics, that "B-17" is really a B-29. And the Buf really does have a place to pee, but I wouldn't call it a bathroom. There's a standup can downstairs with the naviguessers and a box with a toilet seat upstairs where everybody gets to make gross noises and complain about the stink when someone has to take a dump. It's kind of like crapping in a wastbasket with a bunch of your friends sitting around watching & jeering. Never saw a relief tube in a B-52. Those were for the fighter boys. As for the new ones not having tailguns, the H model, the latest one, has a 20mm gatling gun in the tail. The G model and all previous had a quad .50 setup. The gunner on the Gs& Hs got to sit up front & fire the guns via remote control. The Fs & previous had the gunner in the back, under the fin. The one in the pic is a D model, our heavy lifter in VietNam. Several of them shot down MiGs with those tail guns. One we had at Griffiss AFB in NY had four red stars painter on its side.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 5:43:48 AM EDT
The B-58 Hustler, Now that plane is awesome.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 8:03:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2002 8:12:25 AM EDT by hound]
The absolute hands down ultimate [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid20/p1eab421b2e6b33a588d4a4108b6eba75/fdbc4916.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 8:16:20 AM EDT
[url]http://www.pe.net/~marfldmu/sr71a.htm[/url] March Field Air Museum---my pic was taken by the lovely psyren when we visited there a few eeks ago. More pic here [url]http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4291818959[/url]
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 9:07:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cnatra: Jackpot! [:D] [url]www.starfighters.nl[/url] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/cnatra%2Fdifron%2Ejpg[/img]
View Quote
The missile with a man in it? Can't turn for shit, but it's an interesting plane! C'mon... no pictures of F-4s??
Top Top