PDA

View Full Version : Favourite 60s Fighter



mynameisroland
11-13-2006, 12:54 PM
All the talk of the SR 71 vs the world and the F16 vs the Mirage 2000 made me think of a Jet fighter I actually do love.

The English Electric Lightning. Great name, awesome fighter.

"The Lightning?s speed and climb performance were excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but even compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min), the MiG-21 managed 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min).

The official ceiling was a secret amongst the general public and low security RAF documents simply stated 60,000+ ft (18 000 m), although it was well known within the RAF to be capable of much greater heights. Recently the actual operating ceiling has been made public by the late Brian Carroll, a former RAF Lightning pilot and ex-Lightning Chief Examiner, who reports taking an F-53 Lightning up to 87,300 feet (26 600 m) at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark". In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26 800 m) in his F3 Lightning. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat.

Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison that the F-15C Eagle (which he also flew) that:

"Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lighting leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Take-off roll is between 2,000 & 3,000 feet [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered take-off. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 feet [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500 m]".

In British Airways trials in April 1985, Concorde was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s - but only Lightning XR749, flown by Mike Hale and described by him as " a very hot ship, even for a Lightning", managed to overtake Concorde on a stern conversion intercept [1].

However, later fighters greatly outclassed the Lightning in terms of range, radar and avionics, and weapons load, and were far more effective air-to-air fighters. The short range of the Lightning - just 900 miles - was particularly crippling."

Taken from Wiki, got a good book on it somewhere I'll dig up a few quotes and add them later on.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/supreme_ad.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/050828BRUIMG_9711-01.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Viper2005_
11-13-2006, 12:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

http://www.thundercity.com/

berg417448
11-13-2006, 01:17 PM
Yeah...the Lightning was a great one.

I also love the F-104...even more so since I've seen the Starfighters put on a couple of airshows.

I once found this enthusiastic pilot's description of what it was like to fly one:

Ruminations on the F-104
Walt BJ, Zipper pilot, ret (Not by choice)

"I was in the 319FIS at Homestead AFB from 1964 to 1967. Prior to that I had amassed 600 hours in the F-86 and 1500 in the F-102. My last tour had been at Thule in the Deuce, and at 40 below it was a sprightly performer. Like a takeoff roll of 1300 feet! But my first ride in the F-104 - hey, I'd been on test hop orders since 1960 and was used to checking gauges on the roll! But after releasing the brakes on the -104B I'd managed to check 3 of the 5 gauges one checks after the burner light and my IP said quietly 'Rotate!'. We were nearing 180 KIAS! BTW If you don't get the gear handle up as the aircraft breaks ground at 186 you could trap the main gear doors open. No big deal; just nose up to slow below 250 KIAS and cycle the gear. No blow except to one's pride.

Anyway - the 319th was the ONLY combat flying outfit I've ever been in where we had payday afternoon off. The availability rate was limited ONLY by parts. The airplane was extremely reliable. The radar cold be changed in 20 minutes; the engine in 2 hours. Every comm/electronic box could be changed at the end of the runway in the quick check area in matter of a few minutes - and was. Our QC crew had spare boxes in their van and saved many a sortie.

ADC had an exercise where they put up targets in a racetrack and tested the unit on how many sorties it could crank out. One afternoon we put 60 sorties up in three hours. The pilots were RTB'ing in AB and the ground crews were giving us 15 minute turnarounds!

The F-104 is the ONLY airplane I ever heard of where the squadron dog would exceed all the Flight Manual red line limits - 750KIAS, M2.0 and 100C engine inlet temp, and the SLOW light which came on at 121C in the generator cooling air duct. The bird originally had the GE J79-3B engine, and by the time I got to fly it that engine was getting worn out. The engine frames were so warped now that hot air leaks would set off the AFT OVERHEAT light if one got too slow at altitude (generally under 315 KIAS or so). Finally a fine officer and gentleman Col (now Bgen, ret) Dave Rippetoe got us the J79-19 engine. This is the same engine that is in the F104S and a variant of the F-4E engine. The replacement was simple enough so that the majority were installed in the squadron.

The -3B gave us 9600 lbs in military and 14000 in AB - when it was new, that is. The -19 gave us 12850 in military and 18900 in AB, later reduced for peacetime longevity to 11870/17500. Suffice to say the increase in performance was outstanding. The old bird would take about 4 minutes to get to mach 2 from .9, covering about 100 miles and using about all the fuel one could spare. The new bird took 1 minute 45 seconds, 27 miles, and 1000 pounds of fuel!

We normally flew 1:20 sorties clean (no ext tanks); now we could fly 1:30. The bird now cruised at 35000 at 315 KIAS at 2700PPH. Two reasons for greater efficiency, a new nozzle and a higher compression ratio in the compressor. With 2 x 165 galon tip tanks we could now go HST-Big SpringTX, BGS to Palmdale. 2 hop XC from FL to CA.

We intercepted U-2 fairly often on their training flights, usually above 60000. Of course we had to wear p-suits. Fuel was our limitation on the old bird; we couldn't afford to wait more than about 5 minutes if he was behind on his ETA. But with the new bird! I was fortunate enough to fly the first U2 mission and during prebrief the controller at MOADS and I talked it over. Of course he had nothing in his computer about the bird's new performance. I asked to be rolled out 35 miles behind the U-2 at .9 mach at 35000. He did just that. I selected full Ab and started accelerating. As the bird pass 1.4 I started a gentle climb. At something like 18 miles (on a 20 nm scope) I saw his blip on our 'spinscan' ASG14 radar. I glanced at the gauges and saw we were 1.8 M passing 58000! I don't recall what the fuel gauge read but it was nothing to worry about. Completed the intercept and peeled off for home with about 2400 pounds of fuel left! In the old bird if we had 1200 left then we were in fat city! Gs. Yeah, just about everybody could out turn a -104 in the usual subsonic dogfight area. But the only birds that gave us a hard time - with the old engine! - were the -106 and the F-8. The secret was never slowing down and using the vertical to the max. We had a good gun and sight combo and practiced (some of us) deflection shooting out to 3500-4000 feet. We got to where we could hit the dart (5x12 feet) about 85% of the time at ranges exceeding 2500 feet using the radar ranging gunsight. The plan was to force the bogey into a turn and then phase our attacks so one bird was alway threatening the bogey. This is the TAC lead wingman switch concept. We thought of it and flew it as 'fluid four' without the wingmen, covering each other and the responsibilities switching according to the fight. Our unit sent people up to Tyndall to fight the F106s when they were trying to sell the 106 as a deployable air superiority team. The -19 -104 waxed the 6. Later some of the guys (not me, sob - I was going to the F-4 now) went out to Edwards to fly against some of the oppo birds. later while working for Air Florida I talked to their 737 chief pilot. He was flying a very capable oppo bird against the USAF planes as was curving in behind what he thought was a lone F-4 at about 25000. All of a sudden he saw a -104 pull up vertical off the F4s wing - and knew he was in trouble!

The -19 -104 would go supersonic - M1.05 - in true level flight at 25000 in military power. It could maintain .97 on the deck in mil. The fastest I've had one on the deck was 750, the redline. I do know one pilot who let it run out to 825. He was at that time a bachelor and immortal. It's maximum was far beyond 2.0 at altitude. The most I've heard of is 2.4 (same bachelor) which is above the aluminum one-time limit. (2.2 for 5 minutes) I have personally flown the aircraft in a zoom climb high enough so the altimeter stopped turning at around 87000. We were still going up in a 50 degree climb. I suppose the pressure differential was too low to overcome the friction in the gears driving the needles. I know the bird will cruise at 73000 at M2.0; Paul Da San Martineo and I RTB'd from Tyndall to Homestead that way. It certainly impressed Miami Center; I remember the controller's answer when we called "Level Flight Level 730". "Roger, and you weren't lying about your true airspeed either!" (We'd filed a TAS of 1150 kts)

The bird could, on an 85F day from sea level, at combat weight and configuration, go through 45000 in 90 seconds after brake release. This was a bird right off the line with no tweaking.
What always struck me about the aircraft was the way it could accelerate in a zero-G bunt. It seemed like it could jump from 250 to 550 in about 20 seconds. It was certainly fast enough so one had to hold the pitch trim button forward and yet still apply pressure to maintain zero-G for the unloaded accel.

Fighting the bird entailed two tactics; the deep six zoom attack with the AIM-9B and the gun pass followed by a vertical zoom and reattack at 600+. Get a radar lock-on and try for a high angle deflection shot on the planform of the bogey. The instant the gunsight was saturated - could no longer track - quarter roll wings level and zoom vertical again.

It was not uncommon to belly up through 50000 on the reattack. NO ONE could follow us in these maneuvers. Certainly not an F-4. An F-15 could, but they weren't around yet. After the second pass the F-4 was all out of airspeed. The 6 was in the same boat; it lost speed fast when it started pulling G. We could spiral climb away from them and when they paid off split ess back onto their tail.

I just wish USAF hadn't got into a hissy fit with Kelly Johnson. The CL1200 Lancer was an F-104 updated and improved. He solved so many complicated problems so simply on the -104 when I got to the F-4 I was disappointed in the crudity of the solutions to the same problems. There was some real engineering done on the Zipper; it seemed to me the F-4 team just grabbed an answer book off the shelf and leafed to the right page.
The F-104 was sort of like owning the sharpest knife in the world. It was an honest airplane; you knew what was going on all the time. but like using a sharp knife, you better not make any mistakes. it did not suffer fools at all. The engine-out landing pattern was wild; 15000 and 260 over the runway and one turn, 240 KIAS over the threshold. Drop the gear by the emergency release during the flare! Rate of descent stabilized with gear down, engine off, at 240KIAS was about 11000FPM. No slack there. The bird got a bad rep during its infancy - in the USAF about a third of them were lost to engine failure before GE got the bugs out of it. In the Luftwaffe a lot of accidents were due to a combination of green pilots, poor maintenance and lousy (normal) European wx. With 4 tanks - fairly common LW configuration - the liftoff speed is around 215 KIAS. On an 8000 foot runway there is NO slack at all.

Range. Carrying one bomb (guess what kind) with 4 tanks an F-104 will go about half again as far as an F4 on a low-low-low sortie. And it will do it faster, too.

Bomb load. The TAC version can carry four but why would one want to mess up an air superiority fighter with bombs?

Deployability. The Zipper was designed before the perceived need for IFR. Because of the way its built it can be disassembled and loaded on a C-141 and flown to wherever you want it. Wings of and it sits on its gear. Tail off, elevator off rudder, load it board. Unload it at destination and reassemble it. Four bolts hold the after section on, five bolts for each wing. The Lancer could have incorporated a retractable probe and with its afterburning turbofan would have deployed nicely.

Summary. I amassed 2000 hours in the F-4D/E and grew to like it for what it could do. But love it? No way. My love was first the Sabre and then the Zipper. Both were true pilot's aircraft. The Sabre handled like it was part of you; the Zipper only came alive above 450KIAS. But at 600 it started to hum, and at 700 . . . oh, baby!"

Hanglands
11-13-2006, 02:07 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
English Electric Lightning gets first place in my book too, maybe joint first with the Avro Vulcan.

http://www.lightning.org.uk/home.html<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m203/ChickenHawk_2006/logoHH.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/hanglands/)

AWL_Spinner
11-13-2006, 02:20 PM
Hell yeah, the Lightning all the way. And when I win the lottery, I'm off down to Thunder City (http://www.thundercity.com/lightning.htm) in South Africa to fly one.

God's own sportscar.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers, Spinner

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
o Squads! Take a look at the ADW War (http://adwwar.com/en/#), it's fantastic!
o Spinner has been alive in ADW for a maximum of: 3hrs 38mins!

Low_Flyer_MkVb
11-13-2006, 02:31 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/tigers1024.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/zombie1024.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/11sqnlits1024.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/firebirds1024.jpg

Same feller as designed the Whirly, you know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/1822.jpg

Wurkeri
11-13-2006, 02:34 PM
Folland Gnat

woofiedog
11-13-2006, 02:39 PM
I know it's not a 60's... but it's one of my favorites... the Grumman F9F Panther. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Rundberg/3924L.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

NekoReaperman
11-13-2006, 02:55 PM
http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/gallery/phantom/Phantom_landing,_over_round_down_Ark_1973.jpg

Phantom all day long!

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/images/f4snatgd.jpg

http://perso.orange.fr/aeromil-yf/TLP_F4_luft_fume__finale.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d136/Nekoreaperman/reperma.jpg

Jagdgeschwader2
11-13-2006, 03:00 PM
Without a doubt love the Lightning. Here are two of my faves.

Beautiful!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1080871.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1080873.jpg

Sad to see this bird in such a bad condition.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1171795.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jagdgeschwader2s.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

I'll keep a light on in the dog house window for ya!

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-13-2006, 03:06 PM
I always liked the F-111 for some reason. And of coarse the F4.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-111-00000003.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/vmfhavok/theBlackSheep.jpg

VMF-214 The Original Black Sheep Squadron of the IL-2 series are currently recruiting dedicated and mature pilots. Visit us at http://vmf214blacksheep.com/

waffen-79
11-13-2006, 03:11 PM
F-111 FTW followed close by the Mig-25 or 23

I know those 3 performed diff roles but we're talking coolness and sexyness here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/Waffen-79/forum_signature.jpg
You need blokes like me to fly Blue side!
Banning Planes OnLine? NOT COOL, M'KAY?

Thanatos833
11-13-2006, 03:13 PM
I would go with the Mig-21 fishbed. It has such strong basics despite it's obvious flaws that it evolved into models such as the Mig-21 Bison in the 80s as well as the Mig-23 and 27. Mig did not design an all new fighter till the Mig-29, i.e if you look at the Mig-25 as a specialist high altitude interceptor instead of a proper dogfighter.

IMO a classic soviet design, simple, rather crude, yet effective.

In fact, after that there was never a all new multirole aircraft from Mig.
Even today with upgrades, various versions are still flown by many airforces today.

In a joint miltary excercise b/w the Americans and the indians where the American f-15s , 16s and even few F-22s went up against Indian irage-2000s , Su-30s and Upgraded Mig-21 's the venerable Mig-21's managed to hold their own, such was the basic enduring nature of the design.

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~rajwar/pictures/planes/mig21_2.jpg <pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> </pre> http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/mikoyan/mig-21/mig-21smt/MiG-21SMT_2.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ?Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

Airmail109
11-13-2006, 04:04 PM
I still think there is a place for interceptos like the lightening, given a better avionics and radar package, Aim-120s or the new meteor and a more fuel efficient engine im sure it would still be a very capable interceptor.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

ElAurens
11-13-2006, 04:18 PM
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/memberpics/michaud/Hheadon.jpg

Be sure.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Bremspropeller
11-13-2006, 04:27 PM
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/pixalzone1/F104/images/F104-StM-22-92.jpg

As far as ACM, CAS and pinpoint strike are concerned.

http://www.sky-flash.com/airshows/oldies/aviation_013.jpg

"One-oh-Beauty"
http://www.milairpix.com/images/f104g.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

VW-IceFire
11-13-2006, 05:07 PM
Always liked the lines of the CF-101 Voodoo.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/Voodoo_2_Shot.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

mynameisroland
11-13-2006, 06:58 PM
"Of all the Century-series-fighters, the F-104 Starfighter was perhaps the closest to the Lightning in terms of climb rate and speed, but its design was radically different. It was the product of experience gained during the Korean War and was and attempts to deliver out and out performance from a lightweight airframe and a single reheated GE J79 turbojet. The Starfighter had a troubled development - a number of aircraft crashed because of various engine maladies, and handling difficulties were experienced with the high-set tail, which suffered 'pitch up' and some of the first instances of a stable 'superstall' a condition which would affect a number of 'T-tailed' airliners of the 60's, in which the tail surfaces were rendered ineffective owing to the blanketing by the wing. The small jighly loaded wing had blown flaps to increase lift in the approach configuration and reduce touchdown speed to a reasonable 165kts IAS. Undoubtedly one of the main factors that led to the high fatality rate during the Starfighter development was the use of a downward firing ejection seat to avoid the possibility of the pilot hitting the tail. Roland Beamont flew an early F-104 A in June 1958 abd recored his experiences in his book, Testing Years (Ian Allan, 1980). Although his comments may contain certain bias, his views on the F-104 were obviously shared by others as it saw only limited service with the United States Airforce.

His commemts ...

The F-104 was a small, rough-engined aeroplane with good basic longitudinal characteristics, neutral lateral static stability with inadequate directional dampening characteristics, which gave a persistent low-amplitude, short period oscillation with rudder autostabilizer engaged that became divergent with autostabilizer off at high Mach number. The 104's most unsatisfactory feature was the severe effect of its minimal-area, highly loaded and very thin supersonic wing on turning manuverability. When attemting to manuver Lightning-style at any speed below 500kts, the 104 was extremely limited by buffet and stick-jerker.It was clear beyond doubt that the manuverability of this aircraft was far less than the standard of a conventional fighter.

End quote

During one of the early 'Tiger Meets' at Leuchars in 1966 the opportunity was taken to compare the Starfighters level acceleration with that of a Lightning F.3, and it was found that, despite each aircraft having a temporary advantage at varoius stages, they reached their limiting IAS at almost identical times. In terms of aircombat manuvering, however, the Lightning was superior, one Lightning pilot commented that this was not particularly surprising as Lockheed had forgotten to put wings on their machine!


Quotes from Lightning from the cockpit Flying the supersonic legend. Peter Caygill<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

mynameisroland
11-13-2006, 07:10 PM
" There was a Victor tanker returning from HongKong and offering about 17,000lbs of fuel to us. I went up the East coast of Malaysia almost to the Thai border abd filled ot the fuel. I was now left with a straight run home and the east coast was the area in which we could fly supersonic. Initially I climbed to 50,000ft, which was the subsonic service ceiling of the aircraft, and there I accelerated to M2.0 and started to zoom climb, selecting about 16 degrees of pitch. I levelled off at 65,000ft and let the aircraft have its head, reaching M2.2 before once again flying the same zoom profile. This time I held the climb attitude, though to do so required an increasing amount of aft stick as the reduction in downwash over the tail increased. Eventually the stick reached the back stops and I gently topped out, 200 ft short of 88,000 f. From there, Singapore looked tiny and I convinced myself I could see from the very southern tip of Vietnam over my left shoulder, past the Borneo coast in my 11 o'clock, to the Western coast of Sumatra on my right-hand side. The sky was pitch black above me and all of sudden I realized that I did not belong there. With idle/idle set, I started a glide back down which would have carried me over 150 miles. A marvellous example of the Lightning's sheer performance, though the pressure jerkin, g-suit and normal oxygen mask would not have been sufficient had the presurisation failed."

88,000ft is amazing in a frontline service fighter lol<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

R_Target
11-13-2006, 07:14 PM
I always liked the Buccaneer.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/buccaneer/buccaneer_09.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg

LStarosta
11-13-2006, 07:22 PM
I like the MiG-28.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

tigertalon
11-13-2006, 07:39 PM
Foxbat:

(prototype flew in 1964):

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-25-DNSN8809538_JPG.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/mig25/mig25_06.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">?In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility,

EyeoftheChicken
11-13-2006, 07:41 PM
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/smlockwood/Su-15.png

The Su-15 aircraft combined with its Oryol-D58 radar and R-98 missiles formed the Su-15-98 interception complex and was operated within the Vozdukh-1 ground controlled incept (GCI) system of the Soviet Air Defence forces (PVO). Entering service in the 1970s the modernised Su-15TM version was equipped with the Taifun-M radar and R-98M missiles, forming the Su-15-98M complex. The Su-15 together with its bigger brother the MiG-25 guarded the Soviet airspace throughout the 1970s and 1980s until gradually replaced by the more capable Su-15TM and later the MiG-23P, which also meant the end of further Su-15 developments. By the end of the 1980s all older Su-15 and Su-15UT versions had been withdrawn from service, by then also the MiG-31 and Su-27 advanced interceptors had entered service. However most of the Su-15TM fleet were not replaced but scrapped in the early 1990s as required by the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty. A total of 1290 aircraft were produced between 1966 and 1979 at the state aircraft production plant in Novosibirsk, a small number continued service in the Ukrainian Air Force until 1996.
The aircraft was liked by its pilots for its safety, resulting from its two engines, automatic landing approach system and light handling. However it became also infamous because of its involvement in dubious shoot-downs of several civil airliners, in particular KAL007 which killed 269 civilians.

Design

The Su-15 has a classic mid-wing monoplane layout with a highly swept delta-shaped wing and tailplane. This layout is very similar to that of its predeccessors Su-9 and Su-11 as well as the contemporary MiG-21. The Su-15 different from these designs by having two engines and lateral air intakes. This arrangement of the air intakes was needed to enable the use of a larger antenna for the radar, needed to increase the detection range of the radar. The R-11F2S-300 turbojet engines were arranged side-by-side. The tricycle landing gear consisted of a front leg with a single wheel retractable into the fuselage and main carriage consisting of single wheels, which retract inwards into the wing compartments.

Late production series Su-15 received a number of aerodynamic changes to improve handling characteristics during take-off and landing. The new wing features a greater surface area and the other sweep angle was decreased to 45 degrees, resulting in the so called 'cranked-delta'. The new wing reduced the landing and take-off speeds as well as the induced drag in flight. NATO recognised the rewinged aircraft as 'Flagon-D'.
The aircraft also received a UPS boundary layer control system and R-11F2SU-300 engines adapted to the UPS. The UPS system blowns air from the engine compressor to the surface flaps, enabling higher deflection angles of the flaps, 45 for landing and 20 degrees for take-off. However the engine compressors delivered insufficient power, and deflection remained limited to 25 and 15 degrees respectively.

Apart from new weapons and avionics, the 'second stage' Su-15T/TM received also the new R-13-300 turbojects. The R-13-300 was more poweful and slightly improved acceleration and range. It also enabled full use of the UPS system. The air intakes were slightly bigger to accodomate the greater airflow required for the R-13s. The aircraft also received a longer front undercarriage leg to improve wing incidence at take-off and reduce the danger of foreign objects damage (FOD).

Late production Su-15TM received ogive shaped radome (bullet shaped) replacing the more aerodynamic cone design. The cone shape caused the more powerful Taifun-M radar to produce inner reflections of the radar pulse in the nose.

Systems & Avionics

The basic Su-15 was fitted with the RP-15M Oryol-D58M radar (NATO 'Skip Spin'), a modernised variant of the Oryol-D58 radar with better resistance to jamming. The Oryol-D58 was developed from the Oryol radar of the Su-11 and was fitted with a larger antenna. 'Second Stage' Su-15T aircraft were equipped with the more powerful Taifun radar, based on the Smerch-A radar of the MiG-25P. It was only fitted to 10 Su-15T aircraft, all subsequent Su-15 production aircraft (Su-15TM) features the improved Taifun-M (NATO 'Twin Scan'). The Taifun-M was the last of the first generation of Russian fighter radars. View Taifun-M range table

The Su-15 was equipped with the Lazur-S (ARL-S) command datalink, the onboard component of the Ground Controlled Intercept (GCI) system. The ground based operator could transmit commands via UHF radio or via the encoded datalink. In case of the datalink, the Lazur-S would receive, decode and transmit the commands to the pilot in the form of course, speed and altitude indicators as well as single message as 'afterburner on', 'radar on' etcetera. After having been guided to the target by GCI commands, the target could then be engaged using the Su-15's onboard radar.

The Su-15TM was equipped with the Lazur-SM and SAU-58 automatic control system enabling fully automatic mode in which the modernised Vozdukh-1M GCI system directly transmitted commands to the aircraft's control, without pilot intervention. The automatic system could guide the interceptor to the target, engage the radar, launch the missiles at the target, exit from the attack, return to base and enter landing approach to an altitude of 50-60 meters.

Late production Su-15TM were fitted with the modified SAU-58-2, which was able to read low-altitude radio altimeter data. The Vokdukh-1M GCI system could now guide the Su-15TM at low altitude (200 meters) and intercept low-flying targets, which could not be tracked by the Taifun radar because it could not distinguish targets against the ground background. But pilots refused these low level flights with the Su-15TM. By now the MiG-23 with Doppler radar had become available and developement ceased.

Other avionics included IFF, Sirena-2 (Sirena-3 on Su-15TM) Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), and navigation equipment.

Cockpit

The cockpit is fitted with the KS-4 ejection seat designed by Sukhoi. In the top center of the instrument panel a single hooded display is located for the radar. A simple K-10T sight is installed to aim the R-69 missiles and cannons.

The Su-15UT and Su-15UM are two trainer variants, with the cockpits placed in tandem, although with seperate canopies. For communication between the cockpits an intercom is used. The instructor cockpit also features a retractable periscope providing forward vision for the instructor during landing.

Weapons

The Su-15 carried two medium range air-to-air missiles of the K-8 (AA-3 'Anab') family on underwing PU-1-8 (later PU-2-8) launchers. The K-8 range of missiles were developed as part of the interception system aimed at destroying enemy bombers. Although the Su-15 as part of the Su-15-98 was originally intended to carry the R-98 (K-8M2) missile, initially the R-8M1 (K-8M1) was also used. With the Taifun-M radar, the Su-15TM was equipped with the improved R-98M (K-8M3). All of these missiles were available with IR or semi-active radar seeker, normally the Su-15 is seen carrying one of each variant.

Later the IR-guided R-60 short-range missile was added to the Su-15s inventory by adding two small innerwing pylons. The underfuselage pylons were replaced by the BD3-59FK type, enabling carriage of the UPK-23-250 gun containers as well as a number of unguided air-to-ground weapons. The new PU-2-8 pylons could also carry unguided air-to-ground weapons. However the Su-15 lacked the fire control systems needed for effective delivery of these against ground targets

tigertalon
11-13-2006, 07:47 PM
Just started building a Trumpeter 1:48 Su-15 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">?In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility,

DomJScott
11-13-2006, 08:23 PM
I have two favourites..

One being a prototype - the TSR2 - Worst cancellation in aviation history IMO.

The other being of course the Lightening. Just an utterly brutal aircraft but awsome too - love it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

PBNA-Boosher
11-13-2006, 11:33 PM
I'm a BIG fan of the looks of the A-4:
http://www.danshistory.com/skyhawk.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/8237/booshersig2ry6.jpg

"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you..."
-Gandalf

leitmotiv
11-13-2006, 11:55 PM
There are so many of so many nations I am crazy about selecting one is impossible for me---the list is not inclusive, nor is the order any indication of preference!: F-104, F-105, Hunter, Lightning, F-4, MiG-21, Mirages, Sukois, Sea Vixen, Javelin. The F-104 is probably my sentimental favorite---as a boy, it looked to me as futuristic as the designs for spaceships being proposed in the Kennedy years.

Xiolablu3
11-14-2006, 01:56 AM
Gotta be the former holder of the world speed record and the worlds first Supercruise capable plane, the English Electric Lighting :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning

'The Lightning?s speed and climb performance were excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but even compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min), the MiG-21 managed 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min).



http://www.zap16.com/images/111_Mike.JPG <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

KIMURA
11-14-2006, 02:11 AM
Surely not a fighter, but as a child I loved that plane.

http://prototypes.free.fr/a5/images/a5_01.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/Ki1.jpg

Altocirrus
11-14-2006, 03:03 AM
The 50-60s is probalby my favourite jet era. There are so many interesting designs, now they just seem to follow a formula.

I'm always impressed by the Saab Draken, so I guess that would be one of my favourites:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/saab-j35-draken-01.jpg

However, nothing can touch the Hunter. Stunning.
http://www.militaryaircraft.de/pictures/military/aircraft/Hunter/Hunter-F58_RIAT2005_003_800.jpg


By the way all the other jets in this thread are great too... especially the lightning!

HayateAce
11-14-2006, 03:43 AM
Nothing comes close.

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/f104.gif <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://aerofiles.com/lock-p38j.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Luftwhiners,black,white.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

stansdds
11-14-2006, 04:06 AM
My favorite fighter of the 60's is the F-105 Thunderchief. A well armed supersonic fighter capable of carrying heavy ordnance, the two seater's were adaptable to the wild weasel mission, and it was rugged.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

When you know as much as I do, you become a danger only to yourself. -Stans, 2006

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Nothing comes close.

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/f104.gif

Read my post which compares the Lightning to the F-104. The Lightning had all of its perfomance and manuvered like a fighter. I have seen the F-104 at an airshow however, it sounded like it was ripping up the air it was cool.

My dad used to love the Lightning when he was a kid, at airshows the RAF had a 9 ship display team. On the solo display the Lightning used to go from standing on the Runway all the way up to 60,000ft climbing vertically with full afterburner. He still hasnt seen a display like it, insanely simple and brutally powerful.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Bremspropeller
11-14-2006, 05:14 AM
The 104 will outfly teh Lightning. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Second thing is that the 104 wasn't designed to T&B - it was a pure B&Z fighter. Flown in it's B&Z-role it owned pretty much any a/c it could meet in the skies - maybe minus the Lightning.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

geetarman
11-14-2006, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Nothing comes close.

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/f104.gif

Read my post which compares the Lightning to the F-104. The Lightning had all of its perfomance and manuvered like a fighter. I have seen the F-104 at an airshow however, it sounded like it was ripping up the air it was cool.

My dad used to love the Lightning when he was a kid, at airshows the RAF had a 9 ship display team. On the solo display the Lightning used to go from standing on the Runway all the way up to 60,000ft climbing vertically with full afterburner. He still hasnt seen a display like it, insanely simple and brutally powerful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You asked for peoples' opinion on their favorite 60's fighters, get it, and then start with the "my d^%&K is bigger the your "d%$^k" ****. You like the Lightning and think its tops. Others don't. Leave it at that.

JG53Frankyboy
11-14-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Altocirrus:
The 50-60s is probalby my favourite jet era. There are so many interesting designs,......

absolutly my opinion too !
i could not select one of them as No1......

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Nothing comes close.

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/f104.gif

Read my post which compares the Lightning to the F-104. The Lightning had all of its perfomance and manuvered like a fighter. I have seen the F-104 at an airshow however, it sounded like it was ripping up the air it was cool.

My dad used to love the Lightning when he was a kid, at airshows the RAF had a 9 ship display team. On the solo display the Lightning used to go from standing on the Runway all the way up to 60,000ft climbing vertically with full afterburner. He still hasnt seen a display like it, insanely simple and brutally powerful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You asked for peoples' opinion on their favorite 60's fighters, get it, and then start with the "my d^%&K is bigger the your "d%$^k" ****. You like the Lightning and think its tops. Others don't. Leave it at that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When a troll posts "Nothing comes close" and I post that the Lightning exceeds it you throw a hissy fit.

You got the hide post option, better still why post at all? You really are a touchy fellow arent you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
11-14-2006, 05:52 AM
Just finished watching an old BBC documentary called 'Sailor' that was all about the HMS Ark Royal during the 70's and has an excellent episode showing some Buccaneers and Phantoms landing on deck.

In particular one poor pilot that took approx 7 approaches to get his buc down on the deck which (on camera) his Superior officer was very understanding about but then (off camera) got himself 'a new one torn'.

Great series and if your into 60's military miscelania is a must see at least once http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Also I was reminded of this site I came across whilst trawling for piccies of the Phantom and others

Thunder and Lightnings (http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/)

Check out the scimitar

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/scimitar/scimitarfiring.jpg

And don't forget this little ugly duck

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/gannet/full/je_xl472_landing.jpg

Both images from the above site

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The 104 will outfly teh Lightning. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Second thing is that the 104 wasn't designed to T&B - it was a pure B&Z fighter. Flown in it's B&Z-role it owned pretty much any a/c it could meet in the skies - maybe minus the Lightning.

Thats the thing , the Lightning powned it. I was reading lots of ACM match ups and what was interesting is that vs the F4 the Lightning could manuver at high G without having to resort reheat so it could conserve its limited fuel. the F4 would have to use burners pretty much constantly to keep its manuver speed up. The same for the Mirage III which buffeted hellishly when pulling high G turns.

It had the reheat figures and for the Mirage III it was something like a 50% increase in thrust, for the F4 a 45% increase and for the Lightnings Avons a 30% increase. So it had more usable thrust/weight ratio at non reheat settings.

Are there any reports of the F-104 being supercruise capable?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
Just finished watching an old BBC documentary called 'Sailor' that was all about the HMS Ark Royal during the 70's and has an excellent episode showing some Buccaneers and Phantoms landing on deck.

In particular one poor pilot that took approx 7 approaches to get his buc down on the deck which (on camera) his Superior officer was very understanding about but then (off camera) got himself 'a new one torn'.

Great series and if your into 60's military miscelania is a must see at least once http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Also I was reminded of this site I came across whilst trawling for piccies of the Phantom and others

Thunder and Lightnings (http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/)

Check out the scimitar

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/scimitar/scimitarfiring.jpg

And don't forget this little ugly duck

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/gannet/full/je_xl472_landing.jpg

Both images from the above site

My girlfriend grandfather served aboard the ArkRoyal. Love the Scimitar and the Javelin, I saw the Redbull Javelin and it was a very powerful, manuverable fighter. I bet it would give many cold war 60's jets a tough time in a manuver contest.

The Gannet always looked like a pregnant fish. Great pics.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Bremspropeller
11-14-2006, 06:05 AM
The 104A with dash 19 engines would do M1.05 in mil power (read the report on page 1).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

Airmail109
11-14-2006, 06:07 AM
Our navy had better capability in the 60s than it does now, we dont even have any more radar equiped sea harriers left http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

Bremspropeller
11-14-2006, 06:10 AM
The Sea Harriers weren't all that briliant.
Would be intersting to know how the Argies would've performed with their own Lima Winders http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

AWL_Spinner
11-14-2006, 06:14 AM
Enough of the willy waving on this thread!

All this stuff is pretty cool, I'd love a 60s era sim with the fidelity of, say, LOMAC. And don't start on the Sea Harriers, their combat record must surely be up there with practically any jet you care to name?

Hopefully the forthcoming Jet Thunder (http://www.thunder-works.com/) will provide some entertaining 70s/80s metal, at least.


I saw the Redbull Javelin

I believe the Red Bull aircraft you're thinking of is a Sea Vixen.


http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/1/13/250px-Sea.vixen.flying.arp.jpg

It did a warm up display before the Red Arrows over Bournemouth pier this year and it's a beauty to watch.

And as loud as all nine Reds together!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers, Spinner

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
o Squads! Take a look at the ADW War (http://adwwar.com/en/#), it's fantastic!
o Spinner has been alive in ADW for a maximum of: 3hrs 38mins!

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 06:26 AM
The Seaharrier wasnt that useless, I agree about the AIM 9Ls though.

Have you read the stories Brem where the Seaharrier consistently beat USAF Aggressor squadrons and USAF F-15 squadrons? They had a K/Dratio of around 25/1 ?

The Harrier has for most of its mission profile a thrust to weight ratio which exceeds one to one on dry power (it has no reheat) add that to thrust vectoring and decent missiles it was almost impossible to beat up close and personal.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:

I believe the Red Bull aircraft you're thinking of is a Sea Vixen.


http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/1/13/250px-Sea.vixen.flying.arp.jpg



My bad, a slip of the keyboard there. The Javelin is a poor performer in comparison. In the Lightning book there were dogfights between the fleet airarm and the RAF and the Lightnig guys were amazed the way that the Vixens were thrown about, especially considering they had a RO officer battoned down in that little space with only one porthole to peer out of lol.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Bremspropeller
11-14-2006, 06:49 AM
I agree, the SH is alright in a single-task scenario. The bad side is, you got to decide what you want to do before you t/o. If you want to bring on a reasonable A2G load, you gotta leave your A2A ordnance on the ship.
A SH, based on the H Gr.5,7 or even AV-8B (carbon-fibred wings, instead of GR.5/7's metal wings) would be a much better choice.
If I were in charge with the RN, I'd replace the SH FRS.2 with AV-8B Plus (APG-65 multirole radar).

So you got the A2A capability of the Mk2 SHs (AMRAAM capability due to APG-65) paired with the A2G capability of the Harrier IIs.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

AWL_Spinner
11-14-2006, 06:58 AM
If I were in charge with the RN, I'd replace the SH FRS.2 with AV-8B Plus (APG-65 multirole radar)

Well I vote to put you in charge of the RN then! Any capability would be better than the current solution: no dedicated air defence capability whatsoever whilst we wait for JSF!

Sheesh, put me in charge of the Government for a day, I'd bang a few heads together...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers, Spinner

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
o Squads! Take a look at the ADW War (http://adwwar.com/en/#), it's fantastic!
o Spinner has been alive in ADW for a maximum of: 3hrs 38mins!

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 06:59 AM
Well the RN has retired all of its Mk 2s, only has RAF Gr 7's now.

The Seaharrier had the origionals wing design, this wing made it faster than the later AV8B composite wing design. I think it may also have been more manuverable. Once the Seaharrier got the Blue Vixen radar and Aim 120s it was a good BVR fighter too. The Seaharrier was good in the A2A role, now the RN has decided that Destroyers can cover that role until our new carriers are ready ...

Lets hope there isnt a Falklands 2 anytime in the next 10 years.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
11-14-2006, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

My girlfriend grandfather served aboard the ArkRoyal. Love the Scimitar and the Javelin, I saw the Redbull Javelin and it was a very powerful, manuverable fighter. I bet it would give many cold war 60's jets a tough time in a manuver contest.

The Gannet always looked like a pregnant fish. Great pics.

Did he serve on the Ark Long enough to get in on the Recording the Crew did with Rod Stewart if so He might have known the guy I work with.

Mind you his voice hasnt improved much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I were in charge with the RN, I'd replace the SH FRS.2 with AV-8B Plus (APG-65 multirole radar)

Well I vote to put you in charge of the RN then! Any capability would be better than the current solution: no dedicated air defence capability whatsoever whilst we wait for JSF!

Sheesh, put me in charge of the Government for a day, I'd bang a few heads together... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Id go for increased Typhoon production option and get a navalised version made. OR failing that buy some Rafales. Re introduce the Seaharrier, cancel the sale of Invincible and get some Harriers on Ocean. That way we gain a larger pool of naval trained aviators. Then the RN has some capability and can get the Carriers launched with or without JSF. I think they are using the JSF thing as a delaying tactic to getting the carriers underway. I bet in a few years time they pull the plug and cite spiraling JSF costs or something like that.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:

Did he serve on the Ark Long enough to get in on the Recording the Crew did with Rod Stewart if so He might have known the guy I work with.

Mind you his voice hasnt improved much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Lol when was that? He was an old timer, joined the service in 42 and then in his late RN years served at Dartmouth and finally was post up to Rosyth he's in his mid 80's now so Im guessing he was shore based when Rod came along http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

SheerLuckHolmes
11-14-2006, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Seaharrier wasnt that useless, I agree about the AIM 9Ls though.

Have you read the stories Brem where the Seaharrier consistently beat USAF Aggressor squadrons and USAF F-15 squadrons? They had a K/Dratio of around 25/1 ?

The Harrier has for most of its mission profile a thrust to weight ratio which exceeds one to one on dry power (it has no reheat) add that to thrust vectoring and decent missiles it was almost impossible to beat up close and personal.

If you want more information about these mock-dogfight and about Falkland airwar I suggest you read book "SEA HARRIERS OVER FALKLAND" written by squadron commander "Sharkey" Ward who himself shot down 3 enemy aircraft.
Excellent book of "modern" (=read 80'ties)airwar

Cheers SheerLuck Holmes

AWL_Spinner
11-14-2006, 11:09 AM
...also David Morgan's excellent Hostile Skies (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hostile-Skies-David-Morgan/dp/0297846450/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/202-3336082-2205425). A little less inter-service hostility than Sharkey's effort.

Oh, and Vulcan 607 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-607-Rowland-White/dp/0593053915/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/202-3336082-2205425) and One Hundred Days (http://www.amazon.co.uk/One-Hundred-Days-Falklands-Commander/dp/0007134673/sr=1-1/qid=1163527726/ref=sr_1_1/202-3336082-2205425?ie=UTF8&s=books) whilst you're at it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers, Spinner

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
o Squads! Take a look at the ADW War (http://adwwar.com/en/#), it's fantastic!
o Spinner has been alive in ADW for a maximum of: 3hrs 38mins!

Airmail109
11-14-2006, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I were in charge with the RN, I'd replace the SH FRS.2 with AV-8B Plus (APG-65 multirole radar)

Well I vote to put you in charge of the RN then! Any capability would be better than the current solution: no dedicated air defence capability whatsoever whilst we wait for JSF!

Sheesh, put me in charge of the Government for a day, I'd bang a few heads together... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Id go for increased Typhoon production option and get a navalised version made. OR failing that buy some Rafales. Re introduce the Seaharrier, cancel the sale of Invincible and get some Harriers on Ocean. That way we gain a larger pool of naval trained aviators. Then the RN has some capability and can get the Carriers launched with or without JSF. I think they are using the JSF thing as a delaying tactic to getting the carriers underway. I bet in a few years time they pull the plug and cite spiraling JSF costs or something like that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're selling the invincible? Jesus how ****ing stupid is our government. They cant equip our army with decent kit or weapons, the SA80 is carp. Our body armour is old, there also not enough of it. We dont have a good basic naval fleet, instead our gov is intent on spending money on stupid projects like a new nuclear weaposn system at the cost of 75 billion pounds. jesus we could equip our whole air force with f22s for that.

They need to:

1) Buy G36s for our troops
2) Buy better body armour and gear for our troops
3) Keep the invincible
4) Buy Naval Rafaels
5) Build more destroyers
6) Give the RAF anough money so they can afford to arm their Eurofighters with CANNON, yes it doesnt even have a gun at the moment...smacktards
7) Buy more armoured cars, for places like iraq...thos south american ones would be better than a humvee.
8) Buy more infantry support light tanks, and increase the amount of armoured infanty units.
9) Buy more Gunship helicopters
10) Get hold of twice as many surgeons as they do
11) Increase the size of the UKSF
12) Invest in future systems such as this new liquid body armour.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

Bremspropeller
11-14-2006, 12:10 PM
G36 FTW !?!!!1<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 12:13 PM
I think after that after the next scheduled refit - may alredy be under way - the Invincible is off to India for something stupid like £36 million.

I would like to see the government increase the carrier building to 3 so that there are always 2 in service and one in refit. The Rafale would be a good option too but politically unlikely, although imo stronger European ties would be a good thing.

The Challenger II is top notch as is the Warrior, some of those Scorpions would be good for the troops agreed, and possibly a change of gun but from what I heard since the take over of Heckler and Koch by Britain the modified SA 80 has been immensely improved.

The main thing id like to see more money spent on is the navy. A strong navy and fleet air arm is a must for Britain.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Airmail109
11-14-2006, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I think after that after the next scheduled refit - may alredy be under way - the Invincible is off to India for something stupid like £36 million.

I would like to see the government increase the carrier building to 3 so that there are always 2 in service and one in refit. The Rafale would be a good option too but politically unlikely, although imo stronger European ties would be a good thing.

The Challenger II is top notch as is the Warrior, some of those Scorpions would be good for the troops agreed, and possibly a change of gun but from what I heard since the take over of Heckler and Koch by Britain the modified SA 80 has been immensely improved.

The main thing id like to see more money spent on is the navy. A strong navy and fleet air arm is a must for Britain.

The refitted A2 is still a POS, from what squaddies have told me. We need a decent navy, but if we want to go bashing up tribes in moutains or chasing terrorists we need more of a militia style rapid reaction force. Well equiped army, with more helis and more light armour.

We also need to replace the 5.56 calibe rifle with the 6.8x43mm SPC,. As well as create our own version of the rpg and issue it to as many troops as we can.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

Xiolablu3
11-14-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by SheerLuckHolmes:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Seaharrier wasnt that useless, I agree about the AIM 9Ls though.

Have you read the stories Brem where the Seaharrier consistently beat USAF Aggressor squadrons and USAF F-15 squadrons? They had a K/Dratio of around 25/1 ?

The Harrier has for most of its mission profile a thrust to weight ratio which exceeds one to one on dry power (it has no reheat) add that to thrust vectoring and decent missiles it was almost impossible to beat up close and personal.

If you want more information about these mock-dogfight and about Falkland airwar I suggest you read book "SEA HARRIERS OVER FALKLAND" written by squadron commander "Sharkey" Ward who himself shot down 3 enemy aircraft.
Excellent book of "modern" (=read 80'ties)airwar

Cheers SheerLuck Holmes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent book (so far) I am only onto chapter 2 but its rivetting.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Xiolablu3
11-14-2006, 12:26 PM
The SA80 isnt actually **** anymore, its one of the the most accurate mass producede Assault Rifles in the world.

In fact the Machine Gun version of the SA80 has been complained about becasue there is not enough 'spread' of the bullets and as such you get a lot of bullets in a very small area, rather than a 'spray'.

It had many faults when it was introduced, but then again so did the Colt M16, and look at that gun now. The upgrade program of the SA80 did much to iron out its faults.

This si the impression I have got from what I have read recently anyway.

It IS heavy for an assualt Rifle tho, surely they could have made it a bit lighter.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I think after that after the next scheduled refit - may alredy be under way - the Invincible is off to India for something stupid like £36 million.

I would like to see the government increase the carrier building to 3 so that there are always 2 in service and one in refit. The Rafale would be a good option too but politically unlikely, although imo stronger European ties would be a good thing.

The Challenger II is top notch as is the Warrior, some of those Scorpions would be good for the troops agreed, and possibly a change of gun but from what I heard since the take over of Heckler and Koch by Britain the modified SA 80 has been immensely improved.

The main thing id like to see more money spent on is the navy. A strong navy and fleet air arm is a must for Britain.

The refitted A2 is still a POS, from what squaddies have told me. We need a decent navy, but if we want to go bashing up tribes in moutains or chasing terrorists we need more of a militia style rapid reaction force. Well equiped army, with more helis and more light armour.

We also need to replace the 5.56 calibe rifle with the 6.5mm grendel. As well as create our own version of the rpg and issue it to as many troops as we can. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of light well equiped forces with lots of self propelled artillery would do the job. Still nice to have cutting edge heavy tanks tho so you can roll in to well defended towns and areas. A RPG wont chip the paint on a Challenger II.

I dont think the SA 80 was all it cracked up to be, it was design by commity and it was a ballsup. G36 would be better as would a lot of German gear.

Still, Navy is my no.1 concern we really need to pull the finger out and make this our top priority - everything of importance is sea borne from our military expeditions to our trade. Cant keep bossing countries around if you cant project your power.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Airmail109
11-14-2006, 12:32 PM
Well for one the deign is esentially flwed, there is far to much weight at the back of the the SA80, leading to far to much muzzle climb in full auto. Theres a reason why the SBS and SAS dont use it. It still has more blockages than say an M4A1. And soldiers have been complaining the 5.56mm round just punctures holes in insurgents they shoot at. The machien gun version of the SA80 has been replaced by an FN weapon because it was unreliabe and incapable of sustained fire. It is now used as a designated marskman rifle.

An rpg is usefull for knocking out annoying snipers behind cover, for quicker than setting up a motar or calling in an airstrike. How many al quaeda insurgents sport challenger II tanks? We have anti tank missiles for that. Self propelled artillery is a ***** to move around in mountainous terrain, and urban enviroments. Our forces need to be less conventional than they are, for the type of fighting we are engaged in.

But yes, I agree...We do need a good navy. We are an island afterall.

And this is from wiki

"he SA80 family of infantry arms have been severely criticised for their weight;[2] approximately 1 kg heavier than other 5.56 mm weapons, a substantial penalty, and heavier than most 7.62 mm selective-fire infantry rifles of prior years. While additional weight can, in general, reduce recoil and increase accuracy of an infantry arm, it is highly questionable whether the additional marginal gain in accuracy is of any benefit in a 5.56 mm infantry rifle or light support weapon. Moreover, much of the weight is in the butt of the weapon, requiring yet more weight in the front handguard to retain sufficient balance and pointing qualities.

Other criticisms have been that during extreme climates, the weapons lock up, or demonstrate a slower rate of fire. Although this has not explicitly been confirmed by the British government, many soldiers complained that whilst in terrains such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia, the weapons would malfunction due to heat or cold alternately expanding or contracting metal parts inside the weapon, causing jams.[3][1]

The L85/L85A1's right-handed ejection port and reciprocating bolt handle make the rifle impossible to fire from the left shoulder, as in a normal firing position these parts would rest against the side of the firer's left cheek.

Several other criticisms have been made of the rifle's design. Unlike the M16, the weapon lacks any effective internal means of storing a cleaning kit. The safety catch on the weapon is the source of one major criticism, as it requires either that the left hand is removed from the foregrip in order to be engaged, or that the right hand is removed from the firing position on the pistol grip. This makes quick engagement of the safety difficult in the prone position whilst maintaining aim with the finger on the trigger - however the safety can be disengaged easily without needing to move the hands. The SA80 has been criticised for numerous malfunctions (such as failure to properly feed cartridges), frequently causing stoppages. For many years, the SA80 was not available in a grenadier version with underslung grenade launcher, though the American M16 series of rifles had possessed this type of capability for decades in the form of the M203.

The bayonet, whilst less important on today's battlefield, is also the source of some criticism. A comparably minor flaw is that the bayonet's handle is metal and touches the barrel, and it can get hot very rapidly during shooting. A further set of problems arises from the metal used to make the blade, many users have complained about it bending and in some cases the blade breaking or shattering. There is, however, limited official documentation on this.

This poor reputation lead to regular criticism by British soldiers and marines, a fact picked up by the UK media[1], for example the Bremner, Bird and Fortune satirical comedy documentary Between Iraq and a Hard Place included the line: "The SA80 is a lethal weapon, especially for the person trying to fire it". The writer Andy McNab stated in his book Bravo Two Zero, that the British Army procured a "Rolls-Royce in the SA80, albeit a prototype Rolls-Royce." Because of the poor performance of the L85A1, the rifle's export sales were largely a failure. To date, the only other nations to use the SA80 are Jamaica, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, all of whom received quantities of the SA80 as foreign aid.[2][1]"<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

thefruitbat
11-14-2006, 01:05 PM
As regards to the sa80, while it has its downsides, it has some very usefull positives as well.

It does weigh more (about the same as an m16 with 203 underneath), but some of that is in the SUSAT sight which is excellent. Anyone can be taught to shoot well with that!

It also has minimal recoil, i've fired air rifles with more, and this enables you to get your next acurate shot of quickly.

Also, because of it's shorter lengh than alot of other standard infantry weapons, it is excellent in FIBUA, which is one of the best places to have an advantage imo.

For me the major downside is simply to many working parts to clean, over twice as many as m16 i think from memory.

As to stopages, i used to experience far more with blanks than i ever did with real bullets, i think even with a BFA, there probally wasnt enough gas recoil to recock properly sometimes, my own opinionhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh and the bayonet is s@hite, its more libable to snap than impale.

cheers fruitbat<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/thefruitbat1/new51sig.jpg

VFA-195 Snacky
11-14-2006, 01:43 PM
For me I like the A4 skyhawk. A nice little turn and burner, could haul a lot of ordy, and could take a beating.

http://www.skyhawk.org/specials/hornet158137.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1918_16003860

AWL_Spinner
11-14-2006, 01:57 PM
6) Give the RAF anough money so they can afford to arm their Eurofighters with CANNON, yes it doesnt even have a gun at the moment...smacktards

I THINK that this particular bit of blinding stupidity is no longer the case, at least on the Tranche 2 delivery. The process went something like this:

Beancounter: I say, this Eurofighter is a bit expensive, anything we can remove?

RAF: Erm, no.

Beancounter: What about this gun thingy? Haven't used one of them since the Battle of Britain have we?

RAF: Well, actually there was more than one air to air guns kill in the Falklands you know, and strafing's always a useful...

Beancounter: Oh, no no no, this just will not do. We want to save money, and removing a key bit of air-to-air AND air-to-ground capability to save 0.000008% of the overall cost seems like a great idea to me!

RAF: Well, what would you replace it with? It's heavy and the aircraft FBW system is designed with it's weight in mind.

Beancounter: Let's replace it with some concrete!

RAF: Wrong density.

Beancounter: Is it by jove! Well let's precision engineer a lump of metal to replace it then!

RAF: But that'll cost more than the gun, which is on a mass-production run for all our European partners and isn't actually that expensive.

Beancounter: Ok, well keep the gun then. But we'll deactivate it and not buy any bullets, so as not to lose face on our original decision.

RAF: Isn't that a bit silly? It's the same gun as in our Tornado and we have a lot of bullets lying around that would be just fine..

Beancounter: Oh FFS, have the ruddy gun! But don't expect us to pay for further Meteor BVR development!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers, Spinner

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
o Squads! Take a look at the ADW War (http://adwwar.com/en/#), it's fantastic!
o Spinner has been alive in ADW for a maximum of: 3hrs 38mins!

DomJScott
11-14-2006, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
6) Give the RAF anough money so they can afford to arm their Eurofighters with CANNON, yes it doesnt even have a gun at the moment...smacktards
Actually they DO have gun's.. they just don't use them both because they don't feel they need them and due to budget. But they DO have them. Removing them apparantly would have cost money in adjusting the software to compencaste.

Airmail109
11-14-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
6) Give the RAF anough money so they can afford to arm their Eurofighters with CANNON, yes it doesnt even have a gun at the moment...smacktards
Actually they DO have gun's.. they just don't use them both because they don't feel they need them and due to budget. But they DO have them. Removing them apparantly would have cost money in adjusting the software to compencaste. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They just arnt activated, and dont have any ammo. Great<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

Lucius_Esox
11-14-2006, 04:29 PM
Some beautifull pictures here everyone. I just love the picture of the Lightning intercept it's my new desktop (hope you don't mind Lowflyer) Also think the Phantom is very... not sure pretty is the right word... mean... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

berg417448
11-14-2006, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
6) Give the RAF anough money so they can afford to arm their Eurofighters with CANNON, yes it doesnt even have a gun at the moment...smacktards
Actually they DO have gun's.. they just don't use them both because they don't feel they need them and due to budget. But they DO have them. Removing them apparantly would have cost money in adjusting the software to compencaste. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They just arnt activated, and dont have any ammo. Great </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently that policy has been changed...ammo and training will apparently be authorized:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=N...06/10/03/ntyph03.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NPRXK0DNMYYNBQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2006/10/03/ntyph03.xml)

Bremspropeller
11-14-2006, 04:32 PM
RAF: return of the blowpipes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://www.ecuadorial.com/images/kapawi%20indian%20blowpipe.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

mynameisroland
11-14-2006, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
RAF: return of the blowpipes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://www.ecuadorial.com/images/kapawi%20indian%20blowpipe.jpg


Lol love the pic! Does that guy know he has been shot in the head with an arrow?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

han freak solo
11-14-2006, 08:00 PM
Pick one. I can't decide.

http://www.casco.net/~fitzrr/104x15.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/HFSsig47.jpg

han freak solo
11-14-2006, 08:04 PM
http://www.webalice.it/imc2004/img_fighters/F-104/F104_01large.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/HFSsig47.jpg

Xiolablu3
11-14-2006, 08:34 PM
I always got the impression that the F104 was a dangerous, unmanounovrable, 'missile with a man in it' from the books I have read.

Apparantly trying to turn it was like trying to mnaouvre hard and fast in a Milk Lorry.

It was fast, tho. But in a close in dogfight it would be next to useless vs almost any other plane. Those wings are so, so tiny, it must have a very high wing loading, the ailerons must be so small as too have almost no effect when at lower speeds.

Landing it was dangerous because of the poor control at low speeds, and has been likened to a 'controlled crash'

The F4 looks like a much better overall plane to me. And the Lightning a much better fighter.

This is just the immpression I have gotten, I am interested to know more about this plane. I am far from an expert on 1960's jets.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

BfHeFwMe
11-14-2006, 10:19 PM
Keep your uber rockets, mine is for pure fun.

http://www.hill.af.mil/museum/photos/coldwar/f-5.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/eepohsan/f5e.jpg

http://www.milavia.net/airforces/brazil/gallery/f-5/f-5_03.jpg

And if I had to go to war with a 60's, no questions......

http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/aces1/idf-af/f-4_idf-af_3.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Valencia, returning in his shot-up but airworthy Hellcat after his harrowing February 1944 mission over Truk, summed up the thoughts of many pilots about Hellcats: ?If they could cook, I?d marry one.?

LEXX_Luthor
11-14-2006, 10:26 PM
Xiolablu3::
I always got the impression that the F104 was a dangerous, unmanounovrable, 'missile with a man in it' from the books I have read.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Think of it like a P-38 which also required above average pilots so its solid advantages over adversaries could be used in full. Afterall, P-38 was a Lockheed too.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

han freak solo
11-14-2006, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
'missile with a man in it'

Exactly. That's what is so fantastic about it. It's a true rocket ship like out of a Jules Verne story. Pure fantasy made real by Lockheed.

The F-104 has always captured my imagination more as a spacecraft than a fighter. It might as well be an X-15. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/HFSsig47.jpg

SheerLuckHolmes
11-14-2006, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I always got the impression that the F104 was a dangerous, unmanounovrable, 'missile with a man in it' from the books I have read.

Apparantly trying to turn it was like trying to mnaouvre hard and fast in a Milk Lorry.

It was fast, tho. But in a close in dogfight it would be next to useless vs almost any other plane. Those wings are so, so tiny, it must have a very high wing loading, the ailerons must be so small as too have almost no effect when at lower speeds.

Landing it was dangerous because of the poor control at low speeds, and has been likened to a 'controlled crash'



General Rall tells in his book that 90% of F104 accidents in Germany were pilots faults. They risked by flying "against orders" etc... he tells that plane was good. (remark... he tells this while he was a general in Bundeswehr.. not in HItler's Luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
11-15-2006, 05:20 AM
Pretty much any pilot loves his 104. I've never heard of a guy who complained about it's performance or flight-characteristics.
In fact, the 104 was widely regarded as the best ACM-platform in the USAF during the early sixties.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
11-15-2006, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Lol when was that? He was an old timer, joined the service in 42 and then in his late RN years served at Dartmouth and finally was post up to Rosyth he's in his mid 80's now so Im guessing he was shore based when Rod came along http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh the Rod Stewart incident was around 1976 so I expect He would probably have missed that particular historical moment in the Arks history.

Captain on the ship was 'Wilf' Graham at the time.

Anyhow those of you interested in 1960's era aircraft that haven't already heard of it might want to take a look at 'Third Wire' series of light sims.

Highley modable cheap and cheer full but with a vast list of early jets ships and carriers and other addons

more info here

Combat Ace (http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?s=97a303dcc78e0214b696f62e416609fd&showforum=81)

Dig around and you will be supprised what you find

There is a Falklands mod available for the fleet airarm fans too

mynameisroland
11-15-2006, 06:05 AM
The F-104 was so good that the USAAF had a very limited procurment and quickly offloaded them all to European countries like Italy and Germany ... as a Strike fighter.

Most versatile 60s jet was the F4 Phantom but for best performance and all round manuverability the Lightning was the plane to beat until the F-15 arrived in the mid 70's

Anyone flown the F4 here? What do you make of this comment;

" Pitch trim was unhappy too, as the stick position moved with trim. This meant that as the F-4B accelerated. the pilot would find that he wa strimming the stick further and further away from him. At high subsonic speed, the pilot could not then rest his wrist on his knee, so the stick movement involved his whole arm. As one inch of stick movement could generate up to 6g, this was not comfortable, and delicate pitch control was difficult. Worse, the cheap and nasty plastic stick top had a circular force-transducer spring contact which allowed it to move about an eighth of an inch in any direction without effect on the flight controls. This all made likely a pilot-induced oscillation (PIO), when the pilot tried to damp out a pitch disturbance but would find that his arm had become an out-of-phase force function that actuall made things worse. The Flight Manual stated that all high-speed aircraft were prone to this. Not the Lightning, nor and other aircraft cleared by Boscombe Down.

Mike Shaw, Lightning pilot who went on 2 year exchange posting with US Marine Corps flying Phantoms then later commanded the Phantom OCU at Coningsby.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
11-15-2006, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Pretty much any pilot loves his 104. I've never heard of a guy who complained about it's performance or flight-characteristics.
In fact, the 104 was widely regarded as the best ACM-platform in the USAF during the early sixties.

but not tot forgett, the F-104G was mainly bought as a tactial nuclear armed bomber(US owned bombs carried by other NATO nations in case of a war), at least for the german JaboG...... than came the strategic change of the NATO to the "flexible response".

the two recon and fighter wings with F104 were relative fast replaced by F4 Phantom II in the Luftwaffe.

the F104G was not bad in this low flying, nuclear role ! it flew very fast and stable at low alt , thx to the small wings.
with conventional weapons, well, it had a small bombload.......

Bremspropeller
11-15-2006, 09:05 AM
The bombload was light yet Luftwaffe squadrons were always ranking high in terms of accuracy.
Some changes were propsed to be introduced in what would have been a "super Recce 104". However, these changes were never introduced since the RF-4E was already chosen to be the RF-104's successor.
Interestingly the Recce birds served the Marineflieger till the very end.
All in all, the 104 was the first lightweight multirole-fighter in the world.



Roland, I can tell you why the USAF (mainly because of ADC's rather bad experiences) disliked the plane. They never used it in it's destined role: air-superriority fighter. Instead it was used as interceptor or stike-a/c - roles which it initially wasn't designed to fufill.
In fact, neither the ADC nor the TAC really discovered the a/c's value as an A2A machine.

Fact is, when the TAC's F-104Cs were up in SEA, the MiGs stayed down. Zippers never lost their escort-clients (be it Warning-Stars or Wild Weasels) to MiGs. CAS missions executed by 104s were reported to be extremely accurate (for it's time).
The 104 was almost as well performing as the Lightning, had one engine less, could carry two missiles more and had the better sight-gun combo. Plus it hat the longer legs and less hangar-time per hour in the air.
Last but not least: the 104 looks like pure sex whereas the Lightning rather looks like a dying swan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

However, I can see a pattern here: the Lighgtning is kinda "god's own a/c" to some in here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Now lets count the roles the Lightning could fulfill:

Interception

...impressive... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

LStarosta
11-15-2006, 09:07 AM
Testiffffyyyyyyy!!!!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

JG53Frankyboy
11-15-2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
........Now lets count the roles the Lightning could fulfill:

Interception

...impressive... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Saudi Arabian Lightning Mk.53 were able to carry bombs and rockets.
but true, i dont think its AA rockets were very usefull in air-to-aircombat against samll fighters and fighterbombers. a later modification to carry 2 or 4 Sidewinders would have made it even more dangerous !
reminds me of the F2A of the two germany based Lightning squads, wich were able to carry 4x30mm Adens http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bremspropeller
11-15-2006, 09:28 AM
Well the Lightning had two initial missile systems:

Red Top and Firestreak. Unfortunately I tend to mix them up, but one of these were actually doing pretty good for their time.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
11-15-2006, 09:38 AM
you mean the later one, the RedTop of the F6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Red_Top

anyway, i doubt usefull against a manouvering small fighter/fighterbomber, but the first Sidewinders were also not very good in this IIRC.

JG53Frankyboy
11-15-2006, 09:41 AM
btw

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk/english_electric/lightning/G-AXEE.jpg

F.53 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blutarski2004
11-15-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
An rpg is usefull for knocking out annoying snipers behind cover, for quicker than setting up a motar or calling in an airstrike. How many al quaeda insurgents sport challenger II tanks? We have anti tank missiles for that. Self propelled artillery is a ***** to move around in mountainous terrain, and urban enviroments. Our forces need to be less conventional than they are, for the type of fighting we are engaged in.


..... I have a US Army acquaintance who works in ordnance research. I once asked him whether the US Army had ever considered copying the Soviet RPG as an easily portable piece of squad/platoon level "pocket artllery" for COIN ops. He stated that there was a lot of interest among the people actually doing the fighting, but that the idea was a total non-starter in the Pentagon. The Pentagon people didn't like it because it was "NIH" (not invented here). The military-industrial community didn't like it because it was too inexpensive to produce (read: insufficient profit per unit).

The US Marines finally got tired of waiting for the Army to get off its posterior and developed their own solution - the Israeli-derived AT4, which the Army ultimately adopted. I'm sure that the AT4 still costs about 10x more than the Soviet RPG.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

mynameisroland
11-15-2006, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
However, I can see a pattern here: the Lighgtning is kinda "god's own a/c" to some in here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Now lets count the roles the Lightning could fulfill:

Interception

...impressive... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

If it aint broke dont fix it. Why should the RAF use Lightning for other roles if it had other aircraft to fullfill them?

As for the USAAF, if F-104 was so good at its 'designed' role why change its role? Why not keep in service as fighter?

"The 104 was almost as well performing as the Lightning, had one engine less, could carry two missiles more and had the better sight-gun combo."

Yes and the F-16 is almost as good as the F-15 Eagle. Know which one id prefer to be in.

I can "see a pattern here" too: if it isnt made in the USA you dont like it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

LStarosta
11-15-2006, 10:25 AM
Yeah, especially that he's German and his country and the USA had bad blood for two world wars in a row, but I'm sure that's exactly why he loves the F-104.


I think he likes it because he knows exactly how much *** it kicks. If anybody's unbiased, it's him.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

mynameisroland
11-15-2006, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Yeah, especially that he's German and his country and the USA had bad blood for two world wars in a row, but I'm sure that's exactly why he loves the F-104.


I think he likes it because he knows exactly how much *** it kicks. If anybody's unbiased, it's him.

You posted anything interesting yet mate?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Bremspropeller
11-15-2006, 11:03 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

LStarosta
11-15-2006, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Yeah, especially that he's German and his country and the USA had bad blood for two world wars in a row, but I'm sure that's exactly why he loves the F-104.


I think he likes it because he knows exactly how much *** it kicks. If anybody's unbiased, it's him.

You posted anything interesting yet mate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

HayateAce
11-15-2006, 11:26 AM
Roland needs a hug.

Here's a virtual teddy for ya champ.

http://www.bears-shop.com/image2005/Teddy%20pilot%20and%20plane.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://aerofiles.com/lock-p38j.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Luftwhiners,black,white.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

mynameisroland
11-15-2006, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Roland needs a hug.

Here's a virtual teddy for ya champ.

http://www.bears-shop.com/image2005/Teddy%20pilot%20and%20plane.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Got in before you changed you ID to BillyTheKid Sukkah!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Xiolablu3
11-15-2006, 11:40 AM
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

mynameisroland
11-15-2006, 11:55 AM
Back on track

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/xr755_nicksemmens.jpg



http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/xr753.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

woofiedog
11-15-2006, 12:54 PM
A few different paint schemes's on the Jet's...

Link: http://www.cloud9photography.us/sub-ee-001.html

http://www.cloud9photography.us/ee/EE07_F-1_WILFRIEDZETSCHE.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

HayateAce
11-15-2006, 02:05 PM
This is perhaps the most humble looking piece of aeronautica I have ever witnessed.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/xr755_nicksemmens.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://aerofiles.com/lock-p38j.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Luftwhiners,black,white.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

Blottogg
11-15-2006, 03:11 PM
http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/f105.jpg http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/f-105d-563rdtfs-blu-1b.jpg
I can't believe it's page 5 of a "Favourite [sic] 60's Fighter" thread and no one has offered the only true contender... the F-105 Thunderchief, aka Thud, Lead Sled, Thunderthud, Iron Butterfly.

750 knots down low!?! Please. How about 800? Gun kills? I've got your gun kills. And nukes? The Thud will do 800 knots on the deck, WITH a nuke, then toss it over the shoulder without slowing down. And it'll run F-15's and F-16's out of gas trying to chase it down. Robin Olds (F-4's) used to call Jack Broughton (F-105's) up when he was fragged to escort the Thuds and say "Would you guys slow down? We can't keep up with you unless we tap 'blower, and then we bingo out early."

My favorite Thud story: A Thud driver gets separated from the strike group in Route Pack VI, and takes a hit coming off target. He's in full 'burner, on the deck, but can't get more than 600 knots out of it. He spots a lone F-4 going "same way, same day" and rejoins on him. Calling him on the radio, he asks "can you look me over, I took a hit and can't tell why this thing won't do more than 600 knots." The Rhino driver looks him over and says "Your speedbrakes are open." The Thud driver says "Oh, thanks", closes the boards, and disappears.

I don't even know if the story is true or not, but I like it anyway.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blotto

"A poor plan, violently executed, is better than no plan at all." - "Sledge"

Bremspropeller
11-15-2006, 03:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I LOVE those war-stories from Nam.
Pardo's Push is one of my favourites http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Dry-tank dive-refueling is another one.
Some tanker crews really deserved to get the DFC - at least.
Being no. 2 for the tanker with 200lbs of gas left gotta be a shaky experience http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
I even heard of a/c that flamed out right before going into pre-contact and had to restart after taking some fuel . All this happened in a dive of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

ploughman
11-15-2006, 03:32 PM
I love Thuds.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

Bremspropeller
11-15-2006, 03:37 PM
What does an F-105 sound like when it hits the ground?

THUD

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I like the shape of it's wings.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

Blottogg
11-15-2006, 03:43 PM
Pardo's Push is a great story. The part where the windscreen starts cracking really gets the pucker factor up. The tanker crews were phenomenal too, as were the Jolly Greens. Having had to deal with their more modern iterations, it makes me wonder where the train came derailed sometimes.

Not to get the Lightning slap-fest going again, but what is it with the Brits and over-wing stores? Granted, there isn't much of an option with the way the gear is articulated, but you gotta wonder what the ballistics were like (emergency jettisoning a tank or rocket pod really was an emergency.) The Jag maintainers hated the overwing Sidewinder rails, just imagine trying to load a rocket pod up there!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blotto

"A poor plan, violently executed, is better than no plan at all." - "Sledge"

Aaron_GT
11-15-2006, 04:25 PM
1) Buy G36s for our troops

I read that the G36 was due to replace the SA80 and field trials of the G36 had already taken place. It's a shame that H&K's passed out of British ownership again else it would have still been buying British in a way.

Aaron_GT
11-15-2006, 04:36 PM
The Lightning:

Fantastic plane, but its biggest flaws were a lack of targets for its designed mission of short range interceptor.

It was designed as a last ditch counter to nuclear bombers, but by the time it was deployed (it would have been more impressive had it arrived in service two or three years earlier) but by the mid 1960s the threat was from ICBMs. Extending its range was problematic as it was so focused on its role of a missile with a man in it that it lacked the space for fuel tankage for other roles, hence the unsightly external bulges. It was capable of being used for ground attack, although that was a waste of its capabilities, but had never been designed to take underwing pods.

So in other words the Lightning was fantastic for its designed role, but was not an easy fit for others that it was pushed into due to a lack of a need in its designed role. It still means it was an exceptional aircraft, but something like the F4 was a great deal more versatile.

In some ways the F104 fell into the same camp as the Lightning - its designed role was one that a plane wasn't really required to fulfill, but the compromises that the F104 required to get the performance were different from the ones that the Lightning had.

Airmail109
11-15-2006, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1) Buy G36s for our troops

I read that the G36 was due to replace the SA80 and field trials of the G36 had already taken place. It's a shame that H&K's passed out of British ownership again else it would have still been buying British in a way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not scheduled to be replaced until 2020 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

jarink
11-15-2006, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I have a US Army acquaintance who works in ordnance research. I once asked him whether the US Army had ever considered copying the Soviet RPG as an easily portable piece of squad/platoon level "pocket artllery" for COIN ops. He stated that there was a lot of interest among the people actually doing the fighting, but that the idea was a total non-starter in the Pentagon. The Pentagon people didn't like it because it was "NIH" (not invented here). The military-industrial community didn't like it because it was too inexpensive to produce (read: insufficient profit per unit).

The US Marines finally got tired of waiting for the Army to get off its posterior and developed their own solution - the Israeli-derived AT4, which the Army ultimately adopted. I'm sure that the AT4 still costs about 10x more than the Soviet RPG.

The AT4 is officially the M-136 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M136_AT4) . It's used by the Army and Marines (and several other countries, including the UK). Basically a Swedish Carl Gustav round (84mm) in a single-shot fiberglass tube. It's primary role is anti-tank, and it's pretty good at it.
http://www.i-mef.usmc.mil/msc/1mardiv/1MarReg/1Mar_Reg_Slide_Photo/at4.jpg


There is something closer to the RPG in US (USMC) service (since the 1980s): The SMAW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-Launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/mk-153_smaw_dsc_0529_200411288213.jpg

It is purpose-designed for anti-tank, bunker-busting, wall breaching, and raising general hell. It's main advantage over the M136 is that it's reloadable. It's really a large, modern Bazooka. It has two distinct advantages over the RPG:
1) It's projectile is not exposed (to damage or accidental discharge)
2) It has ammo specifically designed for wall/bunker breaching, which makes it far more valuable in the MOUT role (Military Operations in Urban Terrain). Sure, it'd be easy to make new rounds for the RPG, but to my knowledge there are no such rounds in common usage.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

My PF movies:Aluminum Eagle (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Aluminum_Eagle/OneVisionLg.zip), Fire and Rain (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Fire_and_Rain/Fire_and_Rain.zip) Snowbirds (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Snowbirds/Snowbirds.zip) and Crew 22 (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Crew_22/Crew22.zip)

http://home.grics.net/jrink/signature.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-15-2006, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
The AT4 is officially the M-136 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M136_AT4) . It's used by the Army and Marines (and several other countries, including the UK). Basically a Swedish Carl Gustav round (84mm) in a single-shot fiberglass tube. It's primary role is anti-tank, and it's pretty good at it.

There is something closer to the RPG in US (USMC) service (since the 1980s): [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-Launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon]The SMAW.



..... Thanks Jurink, you are correct. I was thinking M153 and had an AT4 brain f*rt. The M153 is the one i was talking about -

Multi-Purpose Assault Weapon

The Shoulder-Launched Multi-Purpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) is designed to destroy bunkers and other fortifications during assault operations as well as other designated targets with the dual mode rocket and to destroy main battle tanks with the HEAA rocket.

The SMAW is an 83mm man-portable weapon system consisting of the MK153 Mod 0 launcher, the MK 3 Mod 0 encased HEDP rocket, the MK 6 Mod 0 encased HEAA rocket, and the MK217 Mod 0 spotting rifle cartridge. The launcher consists of a fiberglass launch tube, a 9mm spotting rifle, an electro-mechanical firing mechanism, open battle sights, and a mount for the MK42 Mod 0 optical and AN/PVS-4 night sights. The High Explosive, Dual Purpose (HEDP) rocket is effective against bunkers, masonry and concrete walls, and light armor. The High Explosive Anti-Armor (HEAA) rocket is effective against current tanks without additional armor. The 9mm spotting rounds are ballistically matched to the rockets and increase the gunner's first round hit probability. Training is accomplished with the MK7 Mod 0 encased common practice rocket and the MK213 Mod 0 noise cartridge.

The SMAW MK153 Mod 0 launcher is based on the Israeli B-300 and consists of the launch tube, the spotting rifle, the firing mechanism, and mounting brackets. The launch tube is fiberglass/epoxy with a gel coat on the bore. The spotting rifle is a British design and is mounted on the right side of the launch tube. The firing mechanism mechanically fires the spotting rifle and uses a magneto to fire the rocket. The mounting brackets connect the components and provide the means for boresighting the weapon. The encased rockets are loaded at the rear of the launcher. The spotting cartridges are stored in a magazine in the cap of the encased rocket.

Originally developed as a unique weapon for the U.S. Marine Corps, during Desert Storm, 150 launchers and 5,000 rockets were provided to the U.S. Army. The Army subsequently added the weapon to its inventory.

Primary function: Portable anti-armor rocket launcher.
Length:
To Carry: 29.9 inches (75.95 centimeters)
Ready-to-Fire: 54 inches (137.16 cm)
Weight:
To Carry: 16.6 pounds (7.54 kg)
Ready-to-Fire (HEDP): 29.5 pounds (13.39 kg)
Ready-to-Fire (HEAA): 30.5 pounds (13.85 kg)
Bore diameter: 83mm
Maximum effective range:
1 x 2 Meter Target: 250 meters
Tank-Sized Target: 500 meters
Introduction date: 1984
Unit Replacement Cost: $13,000<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

SpartanHoplite
11-15-2006, 05:37 PM
Man, I am totally with you and that A-7! The MiG-21 is pretty nice too, although I have been finding myself more into the MiG-17 of late.

SH


Originally posted by Jagdgeschwader2:
.

Beautiful!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1080871.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1080873.jpg

Sad to see this bird in such a bad condition.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1171795.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jagdgeschwader2s.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/SpartanHoplite/rodinysig.jpg

mynameisroland
11-15-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The Lightning:

Fantastic plane, but its biggest flaws were a lack of targets for its designed mission of short range interceptor.

It was designed as a last ditch counter to nuclear bombers, but by the time it was deployed (it would have been more impressive had it arrived in service two or three years earlier) but by the mid 1960s the threat was from ICBMs. Extending its range was problematic as it was so focused on its role of a missile with a man in it that it lacked the space for fuel tankage for other roles, hence the unsightly external bulges. It was capable of being used for ground attack, although that was a waste of its capabilities, but had never been designed to take underwing pods.

So in other words the Lightning was fantastic for its designed role, but was not an easy fit for others that it was pushed into due to a lack of a need in its designed role. It still means it was an exceptional aircraft, but something like the F4 was a great deal more versatile.

In some ways the F104 fell into the same camp as the Lightning - its designed role was one that a plane wasn't really required to fulfill, but the compromises that the F104 required to get the performance were different from the ones that the Lightning had.

Good points mate but the Lightning still played an important role ... how many pilots joined the RAF in the last 40's to fly it or cause they loved it as a kid! It had charisma that the F4 and F3 lacked and was the RAFs first and last single seat M2.0 plus fighter until the Typhoon arrived.

Also planes like the Tornado GR1 were never really used as they should have been - thankfully. Low level Nuclear tactical strikes, not 25,000 ft dumb bombing Iraqis. Sure it can take bombs but it was a Cold War jet. Pretty much most high tech complex Jets have never been tested at their role. Their has never been a competent well equiped enemy to test these toys against.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Air_Hog
11-15-2006, 07:22 PM
Has got to be the F-86D Sabre Jet -well actually it was a 50's fighter. One crashed in my back yard when I was a kid. We lived on a small farm in line with the landing pattern of a large mid-west SAC (Strategic Air Command) base. Anyway when aircraft took off sometimes they'd have what was called a "flame out". They would belly-in on our plowed field.

I remember laying on the livingroom floor watching cartoons when I heard a knock at the back door. It was a pilot in full flight gear holding his helmet. There, out in the field was a smoldering F-86D. Over time we had a T-33, and a T-6 trainer belly-in. The T-6 pilot got hurt because the ground was hard and frozen.

One day my mother was at her sink in the kitchen and saw a KC-97 drop low behind some trees then explode (the KC-97 was a mid-air refueller). The plane exploded into a thousand pieces. It was found out through investigation that they lost one engine on takeoff but the pilot feathered the wrong one.

A.H.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/mike_w123/He177A5SIG-1.jpg

mynameisroland
11-15-2006, 07:55 PM
Great story, Must be like Roswell when your a kid and a fully kitted pilot knocks on your door. did you get to keep any of the crates http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
11-15-2006, 07:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Thanks for sharing that Hog. Amazing stuff.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Thanatos833
11-16-2006, 01:59 AM
I think after that after the next scheduled refit - may alredy be under way - the Invincible is off to India for something stupid like £36 million. Not that i'm aware of. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

AFAIK India are getting one from the Russians, a fairly new one which got damaged in a fire and which they can't afford to refit or something. So it goes to India as long as we pay to refit it, they threw it in as a freebie with the other stuff we bought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

That's one and another one the Indians are building themselves.

IIRC those two are it, I don't recall any British carrier on the horizon.

Though we did get our earlier 2 carriers from you. That's the good thing about carriers, you can take an old one, refit it and equip it with modern planes and it does quite well.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ?Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

JG53Frankyboy
11-16-2006, 02:47 AM
that the HMS Invincible is/was sold to India is also "new" for me..........
it was putted out of service, in a kind of reserve, but sold ??

the INS Viraat (ex HMS Hermes) will be replaced by this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya

Bremspropeller
11-16-2006, 04:28 AM
Some funny stuff about the F-104 (also recommended to the Lightning-folks...sit back and enjoy a laugh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ):

http://www.916-starfighter.de/cartoons%20.htm<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

Jagdgeschwader2
11-16-2006, 05:07 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SpartanHoplite:
Man, I am totally with you and that A-7! The MiG-21 is pretty nice too, although I have been finding myself more into the MiG-17 of late.

SH

[QUOTE]



The last two US Navy A-7 squadrons saw service in the first Gulf War before being disbanded upon their return to the US. By 2004, about 100 examples of the A-7 remained in service with Greece and Thailand. She's still going!

First Flight: September 27, 1965 (A-7A)
End of Service: 1993 (still in service with Greece and Portugal)

Number Built: A-7A (199) + A-7B (196) + A-7C (67) + 1,107 others [~1,569 total]

More info:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-7.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/12.jpg


http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/13.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/a7dvic153.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/camopattern.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jagdgeschwader2s.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

I'll keep a light on in the dog house window for ya!

mynameisroland
11-16-2006, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Thanatos833:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think after that after the next scheduled refit - may alredy be under way - the Invincible is off to India for something stupid like £36 million. Not that i'm aware of. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

AFAIK India are getting one from the Russians, a fairly new one which got damaged in a fire and which they can't afford to refit or something. So it goes to India as long as we pay to refit it, they threw it in as a freebie with the other stuff we bought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

That's one and another one the Indians are building themselves.

IIRC those two are it, I don't recall any British carrier on the horizon.

Though we did get our earlier 2 carriers from you. That's the good thing about carriers, you can take an old one, refit it and equip it with modern planes and it does quite well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The info I have I read last year in the Guardian Newspaper or other broadsheet that the Invincible would be retired and would be sold to India. Whether or why this has fallen through or has not been completed I dont know.

I do know that we only have 2 carriers plus Ocean now, and that previously we had 3 at full strength with one normally being refitted. So now we have theoretically the same strength provided that we never again refit our ships ...

*edit*

found this link http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005350347,00.html

Following the de-commissioning, Invincible will be handed over to the MoD?s Disposal and Reserve Ships Organisation which will mothball it until it is sold in 2010.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

GR142-Pipper
11-26-2006, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
For me the fightening and the TSR2 are the ones, indeed the TSR2 (as was the Arrow) were so far ahead of the game it was untrue, until stupidly cancelled.... to buy what? F-111's, that second rate hunk of junk, which was as well cancelled......... a sad day that was when the TSR2 ceased to be and we handed over all the technologies to the USA... I'll certainly spot you one with the TSR-2. Great looking, no doubt about it. In it's own way it reminds me of the RA-5C in this regard...both planes were of the same era and they had that "look" (ala Concord, XB-70, F-106, etc.)

Regarding the F-111 series, they were finally developed into first-rate strike aircraft. The only model of F-111 that was cancelled was the F-111B that was to go to the USN. Fortunately, it was dumped and we got the F-14.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
11-28-2006, 02:38 PM
I have just been watching a program about the F4 Phantom and I am shocked. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


All the pilots and analysts said that it was a big heavy, unmanouvrable bus. All it had going for it were its big engines.

I always thought that the Phantom was an amazing aircraft.

'.. the F4 Phantoms lumps, bums, bent wings and strange shaped tail, were all aerodynamic 'band aids' to try and counter its terrible handling..'

Apparantly all it had very poor air to air record in its first years of service, which improved once they changed the tactics somewhat.

I am surprised as I had always heard very good things about the Phantom.

These F4 pilots and weapons analysts really slated the plane, saying all its success came from being able to carry advanced weapons, nothing to do with the planes performance. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Bremspropeller
11-28-2006, 02:46 PM
Some FWS-absolvent said it was "easy to fly" yet "hard to fly correctly during ACM".

I'm sure the slats improved it's DF-performance.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

Xiolablu3
11-28-2006, 03:03 PM
Another interesting part of this program was when they were discussing the F15 Eagle.

'The F15 Eagle was the first US fighter plane ever to be designed with manouvrablility in mind'

'Everything before was strictly designed as 'Higher, Further, Faster''.

The F15 was designed to be the Spitfire of the 1970's/80's. Speed and range were not a primary concern, it was built to be 'fast enough' but not 'the fastest'. The main concern was that it could out fight any enemy plane in a close in dogfight.

Jonnie Jonsons book was called 'Full Circle - The Story of Air Fighting' and documents aircombat from 1914 to 1982, ending with the Israeli F15 fights and the Harriers over the Falklands (Where their manouvrability allowed them to kill the Argentinian planes without loss to themselves).

I see why his book has the name 'Full Circle' in it now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

LEXX_Luthor
11-28-2006, 03:19 PM
Xiolablu3::
'Everything before was strictly designed as 'Higher, Further, Faster''.
"Further" was secondary...the earliest double sonic birds like F-104, Su-9, etc...sacrificed "further" to get faster and higher.

And that's what is inspiring about the Classics -- raw speed and altitude. I have always preferred strategic interceptors from WW1 SiemensSuckart DIII to MiG-3 and Ki-44 to F-106 and MiG-25 and...then...nothing, as everybody went ICBMs.

MiG-19 has always looked exotic to me, and very hot performance, except for the overloaded missile carrying PM version which was a dog but my fave because...it was an early attempt at all weather missile armed interceptor.



Just made this screenshot, and turned it Black and White, of partially modded StrikeFighter MiG-19PM, made from various -19S and 17PF/PFU components. There's a popular Cold War photo that I try to recreate here, with the low sun shining off the MiG bottom.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Siberian%20Sky/0000.jpg

Outer K-5 missile from cockpit (Mirage Factory's radar equipped MiG-21PFM cockpit). B-47s in the distance.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Siberian%20Sky/11.jpg

StrikeFighters
Or
How I
Learned To
Stop Worrying
About My
Online Kill
Score And
Love
Teh
Open Sim

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/thumbs.gif <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Viper2005_
11-28-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The only model of F-111 that was cancelled was the F-111B that was to go to the USN. Fortunately, it was dumped and we got the F-14.

GR142-Pipper

You're forgetting the RAF version...


Originally posted by Xiolablu3
All the pilots and analysts said that it was a big heavy, unmanouvrable bus. All it had going for it were its big engines.

At high alpha adverse yaw was such a problem that it had to be flown with the stick central; all lateral control had to be provided with rudder input.

It also had a very non linear CL vs alpha curve which climbs, dips and then climbs again towards the final stall. I'd love to see that kind of behaviour in a flightsim; it'd really separate the men from the boys!

Xiolablu3
11-28-2006, 04:26 PM
Rgr guys, thx for the info.

Nice pics Lexx!

I played 'Cold War Gone Hot' at a friends house, but that is the only modern sim I have played.

Is Strike Fighters better than Lock On and Falcon 4.0, Lexx? Can you explain why yuo like it so much? I am wondering whether to get a Jat sim myself and have been leaning towards Lock On now its at budget pricehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I saw it for £5 on Ebay the other day.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Hoarmurath
11-28-2006, 04:51 PM
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/1267/dragonknightsj35fs8.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
11-28-2006, 04:52 PM
X::
Is Strike Fighters better than Lock On and Falcon 4.0,...
Well, outside the obvious -- the industry standard PC Gaming digitalsuperHudMFDjetfighters vs classic Cold War jets, they all have unique aspects. But, as we saw in the other thread about BoB night ops, SF is the only sim that has the astronomically correct night sky, year round, above or below the equator (not sure about Falcon). There is a very hardcore simulation code behind StrikeFighters, including the flight models (!), but this power is hidden and not used entirely out-of-box but 3rd Parties have created hardcore FMs across the envelope for a few select planes (it takes Time...lots of Time) -- perhaps in the future the stock sim will be more "hardcore." I access some of this hidden power, as you can see in my screenshots -- yes, its the SF, but it doesn't look like the SF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif As for gameplay, its best to ask others here, such as leitmotiv, Enforcer, or Hoarmurath, who actually *play* the sim. I never have fully...yet..

I am working on molding the sim into something else, never done before ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3233

The closest sim that came near to my idea perhaps was the cancelled sim Target For Tonight, RAF vs Luftwaffe, strategic air warfare.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

suntrace1
11-28-2006, 06:32 PM
As an avid modern era sim player, I would say that LOMAC and F4 are way ahead from SF, especially LOMAC with modern graphics and 3D cockpit. When flying low in LOMAC, you really get the ground rush feeling, which is totally missing from both SF and F4. Night sky and moon phases are pretty matched also. FM is much better, not to mention advanced FM of a Su-25T in Flaming Cliffs.

But then again it all comes down to, what your looking for in a sim.


When playing SF, I always fly the Thud, so it must be my favorite plane, from all the other gems: F-86/ MiG 15, F100 SuperSabre, F104, F4/ MiG-21,...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/suntrace1/mt-2003-sun-corona.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
11-28-2006, 08:31 PM
The stock -105 cockpit is good.

This is funny ... but has some points...

WoE "review"::


:
:
View Controls
* F1 - Display nicely modelled aircraft interior
* F2 - Display nicely modelled aircraft exterior
* F3 - Chase view
* F4 - Fly-by view
:
:
:etc...
:
(My Favorite)
I - Ignore the A-10 Thunderbolt and F-15 Eagle because you've been flying them for years in other games. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
:

~ http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=70293



hitting my I key ... I I IIII. At least its an early F-15A, and that is very rare in sims I do believe.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-29-2006, 10:10 PM
hoarmurath, Awsim skins for J-35

~> http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=145;t=005512 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=145;t=005512)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

woofiedog
11-29-2006, 11:46 PM
LEXX_Luthor... I been looking for the B-58 and can't find it on the CombatACE site. Is this bomber still available?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

Hoarmurath
11-29-2006, 11:58 PM
The B-58 is available at Column5 website :

http://www.column5.us/

woofiedog
11-30-2006, 12:07 AM
Hoarmurath... Thank's! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Had a bit of a problem with the Rig about a month ago. And getting some of the info and etc back I lost.

Again Thank's<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

LEXX_Luthor
11-30-2006, 02:02 AM
Its a 7zip file. If you don't have 7zip, get it now. That's what I use.

7zip ~> http://www.7-zip.org/<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

woofiedog
11-30-2006, 02:57 AM
LEXX_Luthor... I've been using WinRAR and it's worked Pretty Good sofar, but haven't seen or tried 7zip.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

LEXX_Luthor
11-30-2006, 03:29 AM
Its GNU/GPL licensed, and that's pretty nice. Just now learning about the free software foundation. Try it!

The 7zip format is very efficient. I figured that if C5 has a reason to use it, I'll try it too. And it works. The cirrus clouds I uploaded at the CombatAce were compressed in 7zip, but only to standard zip format so everybody can use it with the plain Windows. I remember my own hesitation when I first saw downloads in RAR (MiG-25 for example) so I bit the bullet. Then I went 7zip. And best, its Made In Russia, as always. Author is Igor Pavlov.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-30-2006, 03:40 AM
Ah, RAR B-58 file at Pasko's place ~> http://home.earthlink.net/~pasko_patak/planes.html (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Epasko_patak/planes.html)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

woofiedog
11-30-2006, 03:59 AM
LEXX_Luthor... I"ll have to give 7zip a try and see how it works.
The Sky addon you have made is Excellent looking... I've run out of Time for today though for any more! LoL

Pasko's work is Extremely Mint! He done some Excellent riding machines.

My favorite is the Panther F9F. Tough flying againest the Mig... but with a little flying you can get a Kill.

Again Thank's for all of the information. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

LEXX_Luthor
11-30-2006, 06:30 PM
7zip...Let us know what happens. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Originally posted by woofiedog:
LEXX_Luthor... I"ll have to give 7zip a try and see how it works.
The Sky addon you have made is Excellent looking... I've run out of Time for today though for any more! LoL

Pasko's work is Extremely Mint! He done some Excellent riding machines.

My favorite is the Panther F9F. Tough flying againest the Mig... but with a little flying you can get a Kill.

Again Thank's for all of the information. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
The cirrus mod -- I bet the dense readme file scares people. It is a hardcore thing though.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Viper2005_
11-30-2006, 06:39 PM
I know for a fact that a very accurate F-104 is currently in the works for X-Plane...

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=23548&st=0

LEXX_Luthor
11-30-2006, 08:46 PM
mmm, this is worth czeching out, Horribly mutated Starfighters ~> http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=966.0<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

han freak solo
12-01-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
mmm, this is worth czeching out, Horribly mutated Starfighters ~> http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=966.0

Those are in IL2 46, be sure.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/HFSsig47.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
12-01-2006, 05:01 PM
haha no no no, but Oleg may be making this for FB-46 ~> http://prototypes.free.fr/yak1000/yak1000-1.htm

... and a free BoB DVD for the first player to make a track of successful takeoff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Blottogg
12-01-2006, 06:30 PM
Yet another aircraft I never knew existed. Apparently they never flew the Yak-1000. http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/on/yak1000/yak1000.htm

That thing looks like it would have been a handful at high AoA (like takeoff and landing, perhaps explaining the taxi test results.) The ailerons imbedded in the flaps look interesting.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blotto

"A poor plan, violently executed, is better than no plan at all." - "Sledge"

woofiedog
12-02-2006, 07:26 AM
You can't leave out this Bird from the list! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00040.jpg

leitmotiv
12-02-2006, 01:34 PM
I'm still groaning over the demise of TARGET FOR TONIGHT, LEXX_Luthor. It would have been my optimum sim, too. Can't imagine anything more demanding for each side. Your SAC project looks fantastic. Keep us posted. When an ex-Air Force F-4 pilot compared WINGS OVER VIETNAM to the '60's-era simulators on which he trained, I think that is a pretty good rec for TK's work on the Third Wire sims. I like all of them. I thought FALCON II was lifeless, but others love it. I have no quarrel with them. I have no interest in contemporary combat aircraft (except to "fly" them experimentally); my interests lie in the 1914-1973 period (OK, I do like using the STRIKE FIGHTERS Iranian F-14, what a beast). I would put WINGS OVER VIETNAM with the YANKEE AIR PIRATE mod up against any other jet sim.

That X PLANE F-104 looks fantastic, Viper. It's bookmarked! The Cloud9 F-104 for FS9 is pretty amazing, too.

The F-104 is my favorite '60's fighter (OK, if I have to count the "F"-105 as a fighter, it's my favorite).

woofiedog
12-03-2006, 03:56 AM
Or This one... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00034.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

Aaron_GT
12-03-2006, 04:59 AM
What sim are those screenshots from?

JG53Frankyboy
12-03-2006, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
What sim are those screenshots from?

http://www.thirdwire.com/projects.htm

but the shwon planes are 3.party stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
the game has, as the oposite side of IL2, an almost totaly open engine..........

my personal opinion about this game series is:
nice to make screenshots, but playability................................

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 06:14 AM
The Phantom, without doubt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Great plane, great lines.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

leitmotiv
12-03-2006, 08:42 AM
Now there is a postulate war simulator I can get behind, woofiedog! Yeah, I have the flying wing, too. My favorite SF bomber is the B-47---fast and that tail stinger usually takes care of what can catch me.

woofiedog
12-03-2006, 09:41 PM
JG53Frankyboy... have to disagree with you... it's not prefect... no game is. But SF/WoV/WoE it has it own merits.

The People making these addons put a Lot of Extremely Mint work into them and give this game it's Class.

For a Jet Sim it's a Fantastic game and a Blast.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00038.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

Bremspropeller
12-04-2006, 09:40 AM
Found this beautiful painting of a Lightning going vertical.

http://www.oldgloryprints.com/Supersonic_Thoroughbred.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

woofiedog
12-04-2006, 10:44 AM
Bremspropeller... Mint Photo.

LEXX_Luthor... Been using 7-Zip over the week-end. Excellent program... really like the the way it opens the files that are used in the Air Sim Downloads.
As I have stated earlier... have been using a licensed version of WinRAR and this go's along with it Extremely Mint.

Again Thank's for the info.

Next on the list is your Cirrus Cloud Addon... I can see this will take a Bottle of Bourbon to get things worked out. Piece of Cake! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

LEXX_Luthor
12-04-2006, 06:13 PM
If you get the cirrus working, I want to see screenshots if you can poastum up. I've only seen one or two players at simhq show some screenshots. Its a hardcore mod. I'm looking to make a bit more simple hopefully.

Aussom on the 7zip. Here is the website of the Free Software Foundation that promotes the General Public License (its not the same as "open source"). Interesting stuff.

~> http://www.fsf.org/<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Blottogg
12-05-2006, 05:33 AM
Nice pic Bremspropellor. Not meant to tweak your disdain for the Draken, but I found this while searching Courtesy Aviation's offerings (I can dream, can't I?) For Sale (http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/)

The jets tend to be cheaper that the piston warbirds, to purchase at least. They're like old British sports cars that way. $400,000 US walks away with a Draken. 789 total time since new seems a little optimistic though, unless this thing's been in a cave for thirty years.

There's also a pretty good looking MiG-17, Canadair Sabre Mk5 (with an Orenda motor instead of the smokey J-47), a single-seat Hunter (nice looking, but hasn't flown since '92), a couple of Albatross', a P-51, a Bearcat... oh well, off to buy lottery tickets.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blotto

"A poor plan, violently executed, is better than no plan at all." - "Sledge"

omega_max
12-05-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Blottogg:
$400,000 US walks away with a Draken. 789 total time since new seems a little optimistic though, unless this thing's been in a cave for thirty years.



It just may have been in a cave, or at least in a mountain hangar. During the fifthies the SwAF built a couple of "nuke safe" mountain hangars near some of the airbases, e.g. at the F9 air base at Säve, Gothenburg (now a museum). On some of the air bases brand new a/c were flown there to be stored in the mountain hangars only to be be used in the case of war. So, it is not impossible for it to be a low timer but a serious speculant would of course check that specific example http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

By the way, how does the FAA handle the airworthiness of old military jets? The Swedish CAA is less than enthusiastic about old military jets flying with civil registration, especially since someone (without military flying background but lots of cash) managed to crash his newly imported Vampire a few years ago. It is still possible to get a (cold)war-bird I guess, but it will probably not last for long, as if I could afford one (or fly one, guess 200h SEP and 60h Pa-31 isn't sufficient qualification) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Oh, almost forgot, favourite 60s fighter: Definitely the Thud!

Regards

omega_max (On HL as Stoff)

Viper2005_
12-05-2006, 02:06 PM
So many toys, so little time and money!

As for the J-35's total time, I know of fighter aeroplanes which have ended up in museums with only a hundred or so hours total time (There's also the small matter of a beautiful TSR.2 at Duxford with ZERO hours total time...).