Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: HavocTM on June 03, 2005, 09:55:39 AM
-
Anyone else agree that the jet fighters mid-40s to mid-60s were the most beautiful?
I think the early American and British designs were elegant, not taking into account performance.
Aesthetically I think the F-86, Century Series 100-106, and the Hawkers were just incredible looking.
As far as bombers, I am partial to the B-36 Peacemaker.
-
There is no competion: Mirage III
gripen
-
I almost forgot the Saabs...
Beautiful and sleek.
-
Does anyone remember the British fighter with the two big jets stacked vertically with the exhaust exiting under the tail?
I think there are only a couple left and they are in So. Africa, but I cannot remember the designation.
-
Havoc, the over/under configuration was only used on one jet that I know of and that's the British Lightning.
For sexiest jet the hands down winner is the Grumman F-14 Tomcat.:cool:
Mace
-
(http://www.nms.ac.uk/concorde/images/experience/visitMainGraphic.jpg)
military only, its hard to beat the sukhoi's
(http://digilander.libero.it/corsair/oldfiles/image/DSu27Cobra.jpg)
(http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/su37terminator_front.jpg)
(http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Robotech/Robotech-Vehicles/EBSIS_Su-37.jpg)
(http://rusweapon.far.ru/img/plane/fighter/sukhoi/27/37.jpg)
-
-
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.
Remember seeing them passing overhead as a kid. Last week I saw a retired one in a museum. Looks like it's going too fast even when it is standing still.
-
Originally posted by HavocTM
I almost forgot the Saabs...
Beautiful and sleek.
(http://www.aviationtrivia.homestead.com/files/J35.jpg)
(http://www.protito.com/beelden/leeuwarden-1998/041-04-07-98leeuw.jpg)
-
Originally posted by HavocTM
removed.
-
Retracted...
People dying is never funny and I should have known better.
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.
Remember seeing them passing overhead as a kid. Last week I saw a retired one in a museum. Looks like it's going too fast even when it is standing still.
Remember a CF-104 going vertical till out of sight from Uplands. One lucky pilot as I found out later, the engine cut as it was taking off. One could hear the roar of the engine, then silence then an almight roar as he got it re-lite and went ab. Might have had one wrecked 104 in my backyard since the flight path for that runway went over the house.
-
Originally posted by Furball
military only, its hard to beat the sukhoi's
Just make sure you specificy exactly which Su's. That OKB came out with some fairly smurfy ones as well (Frogfoot and Strike Flanker namely) :D
-
F-104 for a fighter withough a doubt. And I liked the B-58 hustler too...
(http://www.multied.com/aviation/fpostwar/B58.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz3
(http://www.starfighters.nl/northam/f104a-15.jpg)
Got to agree...but what a bear to fly....
Wings are 7 1/2 feet long, leading edge is 0.41mm thick. Plane was 1st with a boundry layer control system (blows exaust across control surfaces)...basically its a missle with stubs on it...very high landing speeds.
Total wing area for the 104-C is 196.1 SQF
-
Gimmie a Delta Dart :D
-
F104 and Mirage3
I think the Italians still use the 104
-
Originally posted by HavocTM
Does anyone remember the British fighter with the two big jets stacked vertically with the exhaust exiting under the tail?
I think there are only a couple left and they are in So. Africa, but I cannot remember the designation.
The BAC Lightning?
(http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/full/bos92a00.jpg)
The plane that started the "If it's uggly, it's British". A guy restores them in S. Africa, gives type rating too.
(http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/full/bbac01.jpg) Looks like a paper plane disign.:D
-
It looks like the draftsman got bored and just drew straight lines to finish it off and went to the pub....
-
Sexiest jet ever -
Without a doubt the F-16.
-
No one mentions the Grumman cat? any of them? :) F14!!
(http://web.tiscali.it/antoniolabate/images/tomcat1gr.jpg)
-
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f87-3.jpg)
-
Originally posted by HavocTM
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f87-3.jpg)
Looks like a U2 and the car from Knight Rider had a kid...
-
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Dietsch/4211L.jpg)
Without a doubt.
-
Or even better...........
(http://www.uswarbirds.org/images/blueangels/f4/072e.jpg)
(http://www.uswarbirds.org/images/blueangels/f4/ba142.jpg)
The Blue Angel and Thunderbird versions. I think I actually cried when the Thunderbirds replaced the F4. Nothing else will ever look that good.
-
Have to agree, F4 ever since I was a youngster.
-
No other jet fighter is as gorgeous as the F-86 Sabre.....
Simple, elegant lines. The standard to which all others must be measured.
(http://home.att.net/~Historyworld/F-86F-67thFBS.JPG)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Gotta go with the Sabre. I love F4s but there is something about the F86 that just looks right.
It must have been an interesting time to be a Fighter pilot back in the 50s.
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1117843664_f86.jpg)
-
Pah F86. Hunters Rule.
(http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/17-4-2002-9-6-hawker_hunter_formation.jpg)
Gatso
-
(http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/ghawk.jpg)
-
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10-25.jpg)
Sexy depends on your eyes
-
I'd have to stick with the SU-37 for the overall smexy-ness. I can't resist the Cobra.
The Blue Angle F-4's are a close second. I hate F/A-18s...
-
The first, the best...
(http://www.aerohistorians.org/members/stevejantscher/tamiya_me-262_48.jpg)
No other jet looks so interesting to me. Swift, shark-like, yet civil looking all at the same time.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
(http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/ghawk.jpg)
Wait a minute, who gave the Canadians airplanes with guns? They might hurt themselves.
-
For antique jets I'd have to agree with Diablo on the 262. Can't beat the original.
As far as sex appeal... Wolfala is on to something. There is something about an airframe bristling with THAT much destructive power that's.... sexy.
(http://www.midwaysailor.com/photos/a10--001b.jpg)
-
I always seem to find open cockpit aircraft more attractive
(http://www.franklinairshow.com/photos/6jetwaco13.jpg)
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/277_1117871464_afbeelding-011.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/277_1117871566_afbeelding-082.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/277_1117872104_afbeelding-156.jpg)
-
Go229.
A10
Su27
P80
Meteor
A lot of the Luft'46 designs.
-
I Love Warthogs (http://homepage.mac.com/topcover/.cv/topcover/Sites/.Pictures/topcover/NellisRangeComplex/WARTHOG2.jpg-thumb_269_202.jpg)
-
Originally posted by bunch
I always seem to find open cockpit aircraft more attractive
(http://www.franklinairshow.com/photos/6jetwaco13.jpg)
That...
That looks like something that the two-tailed mutant who's name I stole would fly... Especially with what's strapped to the belly! :D
-
Kelly Johnson's mastepiece. There was a fighter version so I think it quailfies as a fighter as much as a warthog.
The sexiest jet is also the fastest.
(http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/sr-71-ec97-43933-4.jpg)
-
Gotta love Vulcans too, flew like a big fighter plane. Gotta be one of the coolest looking planes ever built.
(http://www.tim-beach.com/vulcan2.gif)
(http://www.secretvietnamwar.com/waffle/VULCANII.JPG)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Kelly Johnson's mastepiece. There was a fighter version so I think it quailfies as a fighter as much as a warthog.
The sexiest jet is also the fastest.
(http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/sr-71-ec97-43933-4.jpg)
"Looks good, flys awesome, goes really high, and leaks like a sieve."
-
A-12 was the interceptor version, and I swear I heard from somewhere that the AIM-65 Phoenix was also designed for those monsters as much as the Tomcat, but I've never been able to find an official source to that.
-
Originally posted by Tails
A-12 was the interceptor version, and I swear I heard from somewhere that the AIM-65 Phoenix was also designed for those monsters as much as the Tomcat, but I've never been able to find an official source to that.
AIM-54 and yes, the Phoenix has its origins in the A-12 missile program.
-
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 :D
-
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 :D
Like my boss said to me, "don't sweat the small ****."
-
(http://www.ejectorseats.co.uk/tbirdeject.jpg)
Modern Sukhois take the cake, though.
-
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
-
Too bad that F-16 isn't facing the other way...nice way to get rid of used cars.
My point exactly RTR.
-
A-10 Warthog!
-
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
(http://skill.ru/images/2004/07/31/4954.jpg)
-
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.
-
I wonder how this ho-229 would realy do.
As modern flying wings like that stealth bomber needs a computer to keep it controllable.
-
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+
-
Those early wings only flew at 'slow' speeds? How would they fly at 'high' speeds?
-
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+
-
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.
-
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
-
I think they're reffering to planes without a vertical stabilizer, like the B2. Dunno.