|
I know the F-104 looks like a plane you would not want to be stabbed with as it falls out of the sky. Always amazed that my dad's 6'4" cousin managed to fit in one to fly it for the RCAF. The planes look so tiny and he's a big dude. Probably right at the limit.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
I'd posit nothing powered by a J79 was not awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
The Starfighter might have been a deathtrap but it was an extremely cool looking deathtrap and that's enough of a compensation for me
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
starfighter: poo poo plane, badass rocket
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:The Starfighter might have been a deathtrap but it was an extremely cool looking deathtrap and that's enough of a compensation for me Correct. VOTE YES ON 69 posted:starfighter: poo poo plane, badass rocket Also correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Inacio posted:I literally looked at the title after scrolling down and seeing nothing but that. That's got to have been taken by one helluva telephoto lens. The way it's compressed buildings 5-10km in the background to look like theyre just behind the floating potato.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
I like that the Warning Star comes with a carrying sheath for the Starfighter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
If a plane is good enough for Chuck Yeager its good enough for me
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:If a plane is good enough for Chuck Yeager its good enough for me Depends on the mission.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
The Starfighter wasn't that bad, it was just tasked with an insanely dangerous mission.  Also have a cool (literally) video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOwQuQfquRI
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:If a plane is good enough for Chuck Yeager its good enough for me Didn't he have to eject from one after putting it in a flat spin he couldn't recover from
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:What kind of terrible life choices could possibly have brought you to this, the wrongest opinion?   
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The Starfighter wasn't that bad, it was just tasked with an insanely dangerous mission. Proclick E: That is the same outfit that flew to the south pole mid winter earlier this year to medivac isn't it? slidebite fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Sometimes something is despairingly beautiful even in death. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Aargh posted:That's got to have been taken by one helluva telephoto lens. The way it's compressed buildings 5-10km in the background to look like theyre just behind the floating potato. If you check the metadata on the photos on Airliners.net, a lot of the guys are packing $20,000+ in camera gear. Sometimes even the lens alone costs that much. Taking pictures of airliners is really important guys
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Lenses don’t cause compression. Distance causes compression.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Proclick Yes it is. They also did the same thing in 2001 as well. Sagebrush posted:If you check the metadata on the photos on Airliners.net, a lot of the guys are packing $20,000+ in camera gear. Sometimes even the lens alone costs that much. Not only that, but some of those shots you see, some of these guys are going out and chartering helicopters just to get a special and unique angle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Sometimes something is despairingly beautiful even in death. You. I like the cut of your jib, mister.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Taking pictures of airliners is really important guys drat straight. MrChips posted:Not only that, but some of those shots you see, some of these guys are going out and chartering helicopters just to get a special and unique angle. This is very popular over LAX (I think because it's one of the easier places to arrange it, airspace-wise.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I'd posit nothing powered by a J79 was not awesome. Semi-effortpost since I'm not on mobile now Hypothesis: Anything powered by a J79 was awesome. I'll hit the highlights: The contenders: F-4 Phantom  One of the greatest fighters of the Vietnam era, the F-4 was a workhorse for the Navy and Air Force alike. Chosen as a demonstration aircraft by both the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds, six Phantoms in formation passing overhead is something I'd have to experience if I had a time machine. Also it's the Best Jet. I don't know guys I just really like Phantoms. F-104  "The missile with a man in it." Held simultaneous speed and altitude records. Probably the only fighter to inspire a rock concept album. Basis for at least one wacky land speed record attempt vehicle. B-58 Hustler  Mach 2 nuclear-capable bomber. Bad rear end delta wing. Probably the most atomic age as gently caress aircraft ever designed. A-5 Vigilante  This big (60,000lb max takeoff weight) sonofabith was one of the largest aircraft ever operated off of an aircraft carrier. Again, capable of twice the speed of sound and could Convair 880  Fastest airliner of it's time. Looks like a sexier 707. Dat wing sweep tho. Unfortunately it wasn't economical to operate and was phased out after a short time in service. StandardVC10 posted:It didn't so much "drop" nuclear bombs, as poop them out the back - the bomb bay was arranged horizontally, not vertically. That didn't actually work, so the A-5 made its greatest contribution as a fast recon airplane over Vietnam. Fixed. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:A-5 Vigilante It didn't so much "drop" nuclear bombs, as poop them out the back - the bomb bay was arranged horizontally, not vertically. That didn't actually work, so the A-5 made its greatest contribution as a fast recon airplane over Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
I love the A5
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I love the A5 The Vigilante is such a cool plane, but I just realized that I hardly know anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
The coolest thing about the Vigilante is that North American pitched a three-engine phoenix-armed version to the USAF. Easily the closest we will ever get to a Colonial Viper. The intakes on the top of the wing look like some animu business as well.    The regular A-5 was a horrible MX hog, and the squadron that operated off the carrier my pop was on had several full-time civilian North American tech reps on the boat working on them the entire cruise. The linear bomb bay never really worked, and was often used for aux fuel. Unfortunately, that also never really worked, and would tend to deposit the fuel tanks on the deck due catapult launch induced incontinence. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
That looks slick as hell, even if it probably would have been a horrible pig to actually fly and maintain. I forget what aircraft it was (maybe an F-8 or A-7?), but I remember reading a story of a jet that got launched, and the engine just slid straight out the back and stayed on the deck. It was designed to slide out easily for maintenance, and the mechs had forgotten to secure it back in place properly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
 This counts as Aeronautical Insanity right?  Stay safe azflyboy SeaborneClink fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Why was it such an MX hog? It didn't have variable-geometry wings or anything, used a pretty standard engine, no pistons, and only 2 of em.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
Interesting, I Googled "Breitling Super Constellation" and the first match (I guess the official page) says: quote:For all passionate aviation enthusiasts, the Lockheed Super Constellation remains one of the finest symbols of the conquest of the skies. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The coolest thing about the Vigilante is that North American pitched a three-engine phoenix-armed version to the USAF. Was there ever an actually-produced three-engined combat jet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Hypothesis: Anything powered by a J79 was awesome. Counterpoint - the most mediocre Viper of them all: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
If you don't like the way the Starfighter looks you're dead inside or blind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Was there ever an actually-produced three-engined combat jet? Martin made two prototypes of the XB-51, but lost out to the Canberra. (BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO) http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1210
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:If you don't like the way the Starfighter looks you're dead inside or blind. That actually works, because the pilot can't see what it looks like from inside, also is dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
The F-5 is just such a gorgeous little bastard.   
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Was there ever an actually-produced three-engined combat jet? Not actually in production that I know of but heres a fun one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Wingtip mounted missiles = best missiles 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The F-5 is just such a gorgeous little bastard. This reminds me, since NG still rebuilds these for some of the foreign airforces that use them, what happens to the ones Mexico decided to stop using? I'd think one of the many operators would want to pick them up on the cheap. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5261/the-mexican-air-force-no-longer-has-any-fighter-aircraft-in-its-inventory
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
F-104 was also the basis for the U-2
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:F-104 was also the basis for the U-2 I thought it was built from the B-57?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 15:39
|
|