|
Post by starcruiser on Feb 10, 2018 18:13:23 GMT -7
The Connie was a work of flying art! Very much a product of her time.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 10, 2018 21:06:33 GMT -7
The Connie was a work of flying art! Very much a product of her time. Very much so. It has those wonderful lines that really show the design off...I love the airplane. I had the great pleasure seeing the Angels' Connie. They let my sisters and me walk through her, but not even my granddad could talk them in letting us take a ride even though he was a four stripper at that time.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 10, 2018 21:11:58 GMT -7
The more i look into this machine, I am still not convinced that... the F\A-35Cis a good replacement for... The F\A-18CWhat are peoples thoughts on these birds and what is happening with them?
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Feb 11, 2018 9:08:12 GMT -7
The F-35 has a lot of proving to do before anyone will accept it as an effective design. Just doesn't seem to have the speed, range and load carrying ability to make a good attack platform and isn't particularly agile either. Still love the joke article about an F-35 being outmaneuvered by a Fokker Dr.1: Duffelblog
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 11, 2018 11:24:46 GMT -7
The F-35 has a lot of proving to do before anyone will accept it as an effective design. Just doesn't seem to have the speed, range and load carrying ability to make a good attack platform and isn't particularly agile either. Still love the joke article about an F-35 being outmaneuvered by a Fokker Dr.1: DuffelblogIf the three different simulated models, i have, are even halfway close to the real bird, she is a pig to fly. she has a very wide turn, and well she stalls to damn easily. Speed wise, she is no where as fast as a F/A-16 or a F/A-18. Weapons loud isn't as good, and the so on. The only thing going for it, is its radar reduction measures, but frankly, how effective is that really with bombs slung under the wings? Makes me wounder about the directions we have gone since the Cols War.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Feb 11, 2018 18:25:29 GMT -7
That's part of the problem - no one knows for sure which way to go now...
To me, and I've said this before, a variation of Admiral Zumwalt's High-Low plan makes sense.
Create a high-end (spear head) type of force to lead off an attack and then back that up with a larger force of more practical and affordable equipment to carry on any long term action.
Based on my current understanding of the performance of the F-22, as compared to older aircraft like the F-15, the F-22 can't stay in action as long before requiring tons o' service. The F-15 can be turned around much quicker than the -supposedly- superior F-22.
When you start comparing the F-35 to it's nearest equivalents, the F-16 and F-18, the difference is far more serious. The F-35 isn't very fast, can't carry as much as far, can't fight well enough to really protect itself, and is basically a waste of money and we would be risking good pilots by sending it into combat.
Pretty much all arms of the service should be looking at rationalizing the entire procurement and support process across the board. There's hardly anything being done proactively and nothing at all being done to ensure each arm can properly deal with the insane variety of possible situations this country can find itself in.
Right now, we have ... how many wars going on? Syria/ISIS mess, actions in parts of Africa plus Afghanistan (still). We also have the risk of a hot war on the Korean peninsula and saber-rattling still happening with Russia and China (did it ever really stop?).
This may be the proper time to start yet another lovely off-topic thread!
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 12, 2018 1:00:49 GMT -7
That's part of the problem - no one knows for sure which way to go now... To me, and I've said this before, a variation of Admiral Zumwalt's High-Low plan makes sense. Create a high-end (spear head) type of force to lead off an attack and then back that up with a larger force of more practical and affordable equipment to carry on any long term action. Based on my current understanding of the performance of the F-22, as compared to older aircraft like the F-15, the F-22 can't stay in action as long before requiring tons o' service. The F-15 can be turned around much quicker than the -supposedly- superior F-22. When you start comparing the F-35 to it's nearest equivalents, the F-16 and F-18, the difference is far more serious. The F-35 isn't very fast, can't carry as much as far, can't fight well enough to really protect itself, and is basically a waste of money and we would be risking good pilots by sending it into combat. Pretty much all arms of the service should be looking at rationalizing the entire procurement and support process across the board. There's hardly anything being done proactively and nothing at all being done to ensure each arm can properly deal with the insane variety of possible situations this country can find itself in. Right now, we have ... how many wars going on? Syria/ISIS mess, actions in parts of Africa plus Afghanistan (still). We also have the risk of a hot war on the Korean peninsula and saber-rattling still happening with Russia and China (did it ever really stop?). This may be the proper time to start yet another lovely off-topic thread! I agree with pretty much everything you have stated here. That said, every nation trying to build 5th generation jet fighters are running into the same problems that are being experienced in the US programs. Over budget, under performance and a not so proven technology. That all said, the F-22 does have its place in a strike package. The USAF has been using them in wargames as an area denial weapon covering more conventional strike packages consisting of F-15C air superiority fighters escorting F-15E Strike Eagle strike fighters, while F/A-16 "Vipers" doing the SEAD mission. What i find funny about all this is the fact that the USAF has to rely on Marine/Navy EW platforms to do the jamming for the strike packages. (I wonder, will the USAF ever come up with a replacement for the Sparkvark?) The F-22 Raptor is a great, but limited, area denial plane. I say limited because it is restricted to carrying all of its missiles internal bays, this actually limits its numbers carried. Mow the F-35, its biggest problem is that to much was expected of it. They want it to replace the F-16, but i think the Air Force will miss that speed that the Fighting Falcon is famed for, and i know they will miss the ability of agility. The F-35A, from everything i have seen and heard, flies like a pig! The Marines and the Royal Navy/Royal Air Force, may come out ok. F-35B performs well compared to the Harriers, except in agility. It will give them a more capable weapons delivery systems. The F-35C, I don't think is a good replacement for the F/A-18C in all areas of ability in weapons delivery and agility. Fact is the F-35 series really aren't stealth fighters, what the design does is signifigantly reduces the RCS (radar cross section). But once you start slinging missiles, bombs and tanks on the air-frame, you even start to degrade this advantage. I think this is a bad choice..... Where the F-22 succeeds, I think the F-35 will eventually be seen for a fair design for a jack of all trades, but a master of none project. They can do the job, but probably not as well as what they replace. Besides all that, the F-22 is just one hell of a good looking bird
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Feb 12, 2018 8:09:37 GMT -7
Yep - the F-22 is cool looking, though in some ways, the YF-23 was cooler (and potentially, more effective).
I'm not claiming that stealth aircraft have no purpose. My concern is that we have become obsessed with one solution to the problem of air power and have spent so much on just a couple of designs when we could be at least - updating existing proven designs (crazy thing is, there is a better F-15 out there, the USAF doesn't use it).
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 12, 2018 12:57:31 GMT -7
All this talk about stealth fighters have gotten me to thinking about the..... The UNSTEALTH fighterMcDonnell Douglas F-4J Phantom IIThe Phantom is the perfect fighter if you don't mind being seen on every radar scope within 1,000 miles, and if they don't pick you up, all they have to do is look for the smoke from your pipes. If they do hit you, just remember you don't have time to think, just get out, because you have a 1:1 glide ratio. I give you the perfect GOLDEN BRICK...ooops I mean fighter with out a gun, don't forget to pack those missiles that will even make you more visible to those scopes.... Sorry couln't resist...don't get me wrong...the F-4 is one of my favorite birds...!
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Feb 12, 2018 18:21:04 GMT -7
Yep - "America's proof to the world, that given a big enough engine even a brick can fly!"
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 22, 2018 3:04:41 GMT -7
I know i probably bore most folks with my love of USN and RN naval aviation. I think some of the carrier planes are just works of art. True beauty based on utility and needs translated into wonderful form. Take for instant one of the forgotten gyms of the USN from the 60's. The Grumman S-2D Tracker that was used off the converted and modernized Essex class carriers. The Tracker was designed to combine the work of two aircraft into one airframe and what turned out was a work of art. Designed to be a submarine hunter/killer for use off of smaller decks, she wound up being much more. The plane found many roles in the USN. In her standard form, she performed ASW, able to conduct long patrols Though there were many other roles performed by the Tracker. She was able to be used for unarmed maritime surveillance work, and if the need be, the bird could also be used in the anti-ship role by replacing its torpedoes and depth charges with conventional bombs. and rockets. 'The aircraft was also used in some electronic warfare missions, collecting signals info and mapping them, aka as radar hunting. There were a few times that the Tracker was used over land in Vietnam to drop bombs on coastal targets. The Tracker was also modified into an airborne early warning bird in the form of the E-1 Tracer. And least we forget the famous COD (carrier on board delivery) mission conducted by the C-1A Trader. Variants of this bird served the USN for 20 years before being replaced by the S-3. To be fair the Viking is just as a versatile bird as the Tracker was, but my heart goes out to the Tracker.!!!!
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 23, 2018 0:45:34 GMT -7
This bird really doesn't need an introduction. Anyone who is old enough to remember the first Gulf War and before that the US invasion of Panama will know what she is!!! The design of this bird goes all the way back to the late 1970's and the Have Blue program. This girl, like the honey bee, should not even fly. Thank God for computer assisted controls that kept the "Wobblin Goblin" in the air! Can you believe it has almost been thirty years since the 'public' combat debut of the Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk. i think she is one hell of a good looking airplane and it is a shame that the USAF is putting it out to pasture over the next few years, but that is understandable because the fleet was getting so expensive to maintain, and they required about twice as many ground hours as they did flight hours. All that said, it did one hell of a job over Iraq, during the First Gulf War!!!!
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Feb 23, 2018 7:39:25 GMT -7
Well - when you send in an aircraft with the radar signature of a sparrow (What? African, or European?) it should be effective...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 17:22:13 GMT -7
That's part of the problem - no one knows for sure which way to go now... To me, and I've said this before, a variation of Admiral Zumwalt's High-Low plan makes sense. Create a high-end (spear head) type of force to lead off an attack and then back that up with a larger force of more practical and affordable equipment to carry on any long term action. Based on my current understanding of the performance of the F-22, as compared to older aircraft like the F-15, the F-22 can't stay in action as long before requiring tons o' service. The F-15 can be turned around much quicker than the -supposedly- superior F-22. When you start comparing the F-35 to it's nearest equivalents, the F-16 and F-18, the difference is far more serious. The F-35 isn't very fast, can't carry as much as far, can't fight well enough to really protect itself, and is basically a waste of money and we would be risking good pilots by sending it into combat. Pretty much all arms of the service should be looking at rationalizing the entire procurement and support process across the board. There's hardly anything being done proactively and nothing at all being done to ensure each arm can properly deal with the insane variety of possible situations this country can find itself in. Right now, we have ... how many wars going on? Syria/ISIS mess, actions in parts of Africa plus Afghanistan (still). We also have the risk of a hot war on the Korean peninsula and saber-rattling still happening with Russia and China (did it ever really stop?). This may be the proper time to start yet another lovely off-topic thread! ARGH!!!!!! I wish I could tell you guys about these planes... I'm just not allowed. It's SO frustrating. Here's the deal though - the F-35 CTOL, STOVL, and Conventional are all what the various services and foreign customers asked for. It the F-22 better? HELL YES! Does F-35 have issues... YUP. So did the F-14, -15, -16, and -18 when they entered service. What would I rather see? FA-50 fighter variants of the T-50 trainer cranked out in large numbers. Put the Stealth on a few Top End aircraft (B-2, F-22, and an AWACS) and built thousands of Light, multi-role fighters like a T-50/F-50, or the Textron Scorpion. For the price of 001 USAF F-35, we could buy 005 Scorpions or 003 FA-50's. For the price of 001 USAF F-22, we get 1 .6 F-35's. Most of us are still pretty bitter about the cancellation of the F-22.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Feb 23, 2018 19:42:29 GMT -7
Yep - that's the idea. Use some high-end hardware to make the initial strikes and follow-up with a swarm of good, but less expensive, systems to overwhelm already taxed defenses...
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 23, 2018 22:24:02 GMT -7
I guess i am just a sentimental old warrior from a war that is suppose to be over!!! But, I still think these two Cold War birds are still two wonderful air superiority fighters, and that they should be considered among the best. McDonnell-Douglas F-15C Eagle (Yes i know Boeing claims the airplane now, but it well always be a McDonnell-Douglas to me) The Eagle has earned one hell of a kill ratio; over 100 kills to no loses, though some claim to have been shot down, but there is no evidence of that!!! Sukhoi Su-27B "Flanker" is the only one of the series that can be really considered from the Cold War, because the rest of the Series were designed and manufactured after the fall of the Soviet Union. Introduced into Soviet service in 1985, the Flanker was developed to be a counter to superb Eagle. Like the F-15, the bird was able to conduct combat in the BVR (beyond Visual Range) using a powerful look down/shoot down radar. This meant, like the Eagle, it could engage a target at any altitude. To accomplish the development of such a bird, the Soviets had to abandon the principles of building mass numbers, and had accept guality at lower productions rates...I guess the Western approach won out!!! I think these birds were probably equally matched in technology, so it would have probably come down to who could get the first missile off that would win the dog fight. I haven't found any reports of actual combat between the two types, but I know they have bumped noses over Syria. Hopefully we will never know which is better.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 24, 2018 8:15:54 GMT -7
I have to admit that i find the Cold War aircraft fascinating. These were the machines flying when i was a kid from the Naval fields i grew up around, or the ones that we dreamed we could fly. We knew who they belonged to and the like....The Good Guys and the Bad Guys. Will i have striven to collect as many of those Cold War beasts that i can. I love flying them on the simulators as you can tell. But here is the yardstick that i use when measuring my collection A very nice almost complete list of Cold War birdsThis is an assume list that covers almost everything.... I have collected several other Post Cold War birds for my collection simply because they are neat or because they have a controversy around them. I also have an extensive World War i and World War II collection, that also covers many between the wars birds. My late wife once told me that i spend way to much money on the collection. I should have put it away for retirement, and then she gave me a figure of Snoopy on his dog house chasing the Red Baron and his Dr.I...I still keep that thing on my desk near my joystick!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 10:18:17 GMT -7
Yep - that's the idea. Use some high-end hardware to make the initial strikes and follow-up with a swarm of good, but less expensive, systems to overwhelm already taxed defenses... With a good AWACS, you can load up your B-2's with long range air-to-air missiles to take out the opposing air force, and stealth cruise missles/drones to take out fixed defenses like SAM's and AAA. Use Durandals to take out the enemy runways, trapping their high-dollar assets on the ground. Then (like you said) grind them into hamburger with with cheap to buy and cheap to operate fighters. Something cool a B-2 can do if fly over a formation of tanks (at 30,000+ feet) and drop one guided bomb on each tank*. A squadron of Scorpions or FA-50's with secure datalink should be able to do the same thing (we had datalink back in the 1980's and 1990's, so I don't think it's much of a secret). * I can tell you that it'll do it, but I'm not supposed to tell anyone how it does it. cowboy40 - check you sim models Do the horizontal stabilizers move in conjunction with the ailerons, and do the flaps move in conjunction with the elevators? Watch this video carefully and you'll see what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 26, 2018 11:00:41 GMT -7
I thought I would post this just for fun! This is one of my favorite fictional aircraft from the movies. I have always loved the looks of the Mig-31 prototype fighter from the movie Eastwood movie "Firefox" Mig-31 Firefox over the English channel at 40,000 ft, on a course of 180 moving at Mach 0.85 There was a modeler who actually put together a R/C flying model that proved the airframe was actually flyable. Can you imagine if such plans like the "Firefox" were real....an intercepter capable of Mach 3.2 at 80,000 feet. Come to think of it, the A-12/YF-12 version of the Black Bird would have been one such plane in the real world
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 14:41:45 GMT -7
Very cool! I guess it was kind of a BlackBirdski in a way.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Feb 26, 2018 17:58:54 GMT -7
Can't believe he never ran out of fuel. Probably one of the best cold war movies anyway.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Feb 26, 2018 20:23:31 GMT -7
Very cool! I guess it was kind of a BlackBirdski in a way. Albeit, not even remotely stealthy!
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 27, 2018 10:16:08 GMT -7
Very cool! I guess it was kind of a BlackBirdski in a way. Albeit, not even remotely stealthy! Well Black Bird really wasn't very stealthy either!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 17:58:19 GMT -7
Not a bad video. Some nice examples of other pilots' mistakes to learn from. I learned the first one as "Fly the plane all the way to the chocks". I have also exceeded the maximum published crosswind component in a C-172 a few times. Aircraft and water go together just fine, LAND PLANES and water do not The last item - PREFLIGHT - is really good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2018 5:50:24 GMT -7
cowboy40, you ever try any of these: Pilots N PawsARFPilot DogThey are volunteer transportation for rescue animals. I figure the AA-1 can handle a medium-sized dog in the back. As I understand it, the fuel costs are tax-deductible. You get to fly, and help out a rescue critter with just a PPL. I may just give this a shot. One of the newer members in my Gaming Group works at a rescue, so I may be called upon anyway (after I get my LAST flight physical and another Biennial Review). Maybe I can't do Mercy Flights, but I can do something kinda cool.
|
|