Sexiest Jets

[Tails]

Originally posted by Wolfala
AIM-54 and yes, the Phoenix has its origins in the A-12 missile program.

Please, have pitty on my poor little brain. If you've seen my other posts you would see all kinds of such niggly little mistakes I've been making

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by Tails
Please, have pitty on my poor little brain. If you've seen my other posts you would see all kinds of such niggly little mistakes I've been making

Like my boss said to me, "don't sweat the small ****."

[hawker238]

Modern Sukhois take the cake, though.

[RTR]

Actually OOZ662 the SR71 did leak like a seive (sp?) but on the ground. The reason was, that because it flew as fast as it did, it would generate alot of heat on the airframe surfaces. This would cause expansion. In order to not have the airframe buckle at extreme speed due to heat, allowances were made.

If I recall correctly the fueling procedure for these birds was to put enough in to get it airborne and meet up with a tanker. Fuel was topped up in air.

I believe the actual numbers for this aircraft are still to this day classified, however it is generally accepted that it was capable of at least Mach 3 and altitudes in excess of 80,000 ft. (the RCAF has clocked it passing through our airspace at mach 3+).

A remarkable aircraft no doubt, and sorry to see it retire (although, doesn't NASA still have one?).

I think though, that for me, it is definetely one of the "sexiest jets" there is.  F-18 is one too...just a damn pretty bird.

Cheers,
RTR

[OOZ662]

Too bad that F-16 isn't facing the other way...nice way to get rid of used cars.

My point exactly RTR.

[Elyeh]

A-10 Warthog!

[g00b]

Purity of vision. Pinnacle of pre-computer aerodynamic design. Only just now are we starting to see true flying-wing/blended-body concepts accepted into the mainstream.

The SR-71 does it for me too. Hard to pick between the two.

Speed + Efficiency = Beauty. Think dolphins, sharks, raptors, big cats, well-toned women, etc...

More Info:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ho229.html

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/02/stuff_eng_detail_hoix.htm

[Pei]

Originally posted by RTR

I believe the actual numbers for this aircraft are still to this day classified, however it is generally accepted that it was capable of at least Mach 3 and altitudes in excess of 80,000 ft. (the RCAF has clocked it passing through our airspace at mach 3+).
 

"Yea though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil for I am at 80,000 feet and still climbing."

- allegedly the motto seen at an SR-71 base.

[BUG_EAF322]

I wonder how this ho-229 would realy do.
As modern flying wings like that stealth bomber needs a computer to keep it controllable.

[Charge]

Well Buggie boy, those Horten brothers flying wings actually flew already on 30's and there were similar US designs too before there were any computers. Leads me to think that those stealth bombers do not necessarily need the computer to keep it controllable but it assists the pilot in that task nicely.

-C+

[MiloMorai]

Those early wings only flew at 'slow' speeds? How would they fly at 'high' speeds?

[Charge]

Considering their wing design and control surface design I wouldn't want go into a steep dive in one where I'd risk exceedeing Mach1.

Might be pretty uncontrollable be it computerized or not..

-C+

[Ecliptik]

Those flying wing designs are inherently unstable, but that doesn't mean uncontrollable.  It does mean the pilot has to constantly play with the controls to keep the plane in a straight line and prevent it from entering a spin.  The computers on the stealth bomber essentially act like our combat trim does in AH - constantly making fine adjustments to keep the plane level and straight when the pilot's hands are off the controls.  Just makes life a lot easier.

[g00b]

Flying wings are not any more or less inherently stable than a conventional configuration. Of course some flying wing designs were unstable, so were some conventional designs.

The Me-163 and Ho-229 were reported to have excellent flying qualites. Their pilots loved their flying qualites. Nearly impossible to spin, gentle stall, and ripping fast designs. Go fly the 163 around offline, try to spin it, stall it, etc. It's a kittycat (omg the language filter wouldn't let me say pu**ycat!). Read up on the flight reports. You'll see.

Pretty much all military aircraft are flown fly-by-wire because they push the center of gravity far aft as to make the plane more efficient, the result is it's more unstable. All of these fly-by-wire hi-tech jets can be made into delightfull R/C models if you get the C/G forward, no computer control necassary.

g00b

[OOZ662]

I think they're reffering to planes without a vertical stabilizer, like the B2. Dunno.