Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted April 25, 2006 Posted April 25, 2006 Quickly making one last quick reference to the Tomcat 21, I was so stupid to realize that I've actually seen it before; not in real life of course but in a video game. Have any of you guys played Air Force Delta for the Dreamcast? I still have mine since Christmas of 99' and I remembered when I first selected the F-14D and saw it from the chase view, I noticed that there was something a little different about, and it was the main body/glove vain area in which appeared to be slightly stretched out of proportion. When I saw this, I honestly assumed that the 3D aircraft modelers of the game had made a slight error in modeling the main body/ glove vane area but it turns out that that was the way the Tomcat 21 was like in real life. The point is that I now know that the Tomcat was originally intended to be the F-14D but the creators of the game hypothetically made the Tomcat 21 the F-14D despite the fact Grumman canceled that concept and stuck to using an F-14B(F-14A+) and upgrading it's avionics and keeping those engines. 394056[/snapback] UHm....not sure since its been a while. An F-14G Hellcat II did make an appearance in Airforce Delta Storm for xbox though...not sure what that looks like.
Phalanx Posted April 25, 2006 Posted April 25, 2006 (edited) Quickly making one last quick reference to the Tomcat 21, I was so stupid to realize that I've actually seen it before; not in real life of course but in a video game. Have any of you guys played Air Force Delta for the Dreamcast? I still have mine since Christmas of 99' and I remembered when I first selected the F-14D and saw it from the chase view, I noticed that there was something a little different about, and it was the main body/glove vain area in which appeared to be slightly stretched out of proportion. When I saw this, I honestly assumed that the 3D aircraft modelers of the game had made a slight error in modeling the main body/ glove vane area but it turns out that that was the way the Tomcat 21 was like in real life. The point is that I now know that the Tomcat was originally intended to be the F-14D but the creators of the game hypothetically made the Tomcat 21 the F-14D despite the fact Grumman canceled that concept and stuck to using an F-14B(F-14A+) and upgrading it's avionics and keeping those engines. 394056[/snapback] UHm....not sure since its been a while. An F-14G Hellcat II did make an appearance in Airforce Delta Storm for xbox though...not sure what that looks like. 394073[/snapback] Shin, it looks like an F-14D of corse with it's glove vanes actually out and the aircraft is dark grey. That was my one of my favorite fighter's in the game (I have it for my X-BOX). Of course, that's not a real variant of the F-14 even though I wish it was. In addition to that they had a fighter called the "Jerry Mouse" from Konami's old school game "AJAX". That aircraft looks like a modified F-14. Edited April 25, 2006 by Phalanx
Knight26 Posted April 25, 2006 Posted April 25, 2006 Uh could you have posted a smaller, darker picture, you barely make out a thing in that shot.
Phalanx Posted April 25, 2006 Posted April 25, 2006 Sorry, but that was the only good shot of the fighter I could find over the internet.
Mislovrit Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 PS--I'm almost certain the F-8 would require the wing to be raised to fly like that, as there's no way it'd have enough lift with flaps and slats retracted---flap/slat position on the F-8 is absolutely determined by wing incidence. 393665[/snapback] Going by this page, F-8s can fly with the wings folded up. Whether the information on the site is completely accurate or not, I wouldn't know.
reddsun1 Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 "Another story is that of a student pilot who was practicing arrested landings on a land runway with an F-8H. Things didn't go well, with the pilot missing the cables on two attempts. As he came around for the third attempt, the pilot decided that his aircraft wasn't flying any more and ejected. The pilotless aircraft then settled down on the runway and snagged the cable, to come to rest alongside the runway with minor damage. " LMAO!
David Hingtgen Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 Mislovrit--I posted a photo of an F-8 flying with wings folded, so I'm quite certain it can. The question was whether the folded wings had to be in the raised position to do so, as otherwise the flaps and slats would be retracted. No other plane has to worry about if the wing is up or down, in addition to and independently of if the tips are folded or not.
Skull Leader Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 I'm with David. It might've been able to fly, but it would sure as hell need all the lift it could generate minus the outboard wing panels... hence the variable incidence wing-body would be in the raised position. (they just said it could fly.. they didn't specify how good. I'm wagering a pilot wouldn't want to go into combat like that.)
Phalanx Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 So I take it that an S-3 Viking and an E-2C Hawkeye can't fly with it's wings up as well Dave? IMHO I think an E-2C can't do it because of it's weight and due to the fact it's a propellor based aircraft, the folded wings would cause parasitic drag resistance and in sufficeint air flow and lifting power caused by the wings not being folded out to it's default position.
Knight26 Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 Yes neither of those two planes would be able to fly with their wings folded, for the reasons you stated, also on the S-3 the wings fold at odd angles to be bale to lay somewhat flat which would really kill lift. In general, with only a few exceptions, planes with folding wings will not fly folded up. The F-8 was able to do it because of the variable incidence wing, and a lot of thrust. But it was in no way combat capable and could not unfold in flight. The F-4 could do it because only the tips folded and the rest of the wing was still able to produce lift, plus a heck of a lot of thrust. Pretty much any other plane has too much of the wing fold to all for suffecient lift.
Coota0 Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 Dumb question of the day: Was there any discussion of making the F-15 a two seater (other than the B, D, and E) when deawing up the design requirements for the Eagle?
Knight26 Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 Yes there was, heck look at the F-15s canopy the thing looks like it was always intended to be a two seater.
Phalanx Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 How bout' this question: Did Grumman ever had plans to make the F-14 a single seater or what? I really wish that they did because going back to the previous thread, I asked Knight26 whether or not it was possible to fly an F-14 with one pilot up front with noone in the back. I just thought that I point that out again because I never understood the reason why they never made a single seater variant of the F-14 in its nearly 36 year history. Is it because it's Pheonix missle system is so complex and intricate that another pilot is required to manage it or what?
Knight26 Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 Short answer, the long range weapons systems on the F-14 required a RIO/WSO, when the F-14 took on the recon role the TARPS pod also required a 2nd crewman. Again when the BombCat was introduced. A lot of the F-14s systems required a 2nd crewman to operate them because they were so work intensive. An F-14 can be flown by a single crewman if all you are doing in straight up close in dogfighting (mode 1 or 2) correct me if I am wrong DH. But for anything beyond that you need the RIO/WSO. Besides that, a single seat F-14 would just look goofy.
Phalanx Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 I don't know what would make an F-14 look goofy if it had one seat in it, but is it because of the shape of the canopy or where the seat would be positioned that would make it look odd? Because when I look at an F-14 from the side, it would look rather goofy, but I think that the canopy of the F-14 would be redesigned to look normal having one seat in it IMHO. Also, I heard that after several variants, the long-range concept ultimately evolved, providing Phoenix the capability to initially guide itself using the semi-active radar mode and the Tomcat’s AWG-9 weapon control system, and when close enough to its target, assume guidance control using the active radar system. In addition to this, I know that the Pheonix missle was designed for destroying airborne targets at long distances, but is it possible to "blind fire" a Pheonix to hit a ground target or what?
Skull Leader Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 (edited) I don't know what would make an F-14 look goofy if it had one seat in it, but is it because of the shape of the canopy or where the seat would be positioned that would make it look odd? Because when I look at an F-14 from the side, it would look rather goofy, but I think that the canopy of the F-14 would be redesigned to look normal having one seat in it IMHO. Also, I heard that after several variants, the long-range concept ultimately evolved, providing Phoenix the capability to initially guide itself using the semi-active radar mode and the Tomcat’s AWG-9 weapon control system, and when close enough to its target, assume guidance control using the active radar system. In addition to this, I know that the Pheonix missle was designed for destroying airborne targets at long distances, but is it possible to "blind fire" a Pheonix to hit a ground target or what? 394589[/snapback] One of the prototype Tomcats was configured as a single-seater (it was their engine test frame I think). And before you ask, no it didn't look any different. They simply removed the seat and most of the stuff from the rear tub area. And unless I'm mistaken, radar missiles generally won't fire unless they're locked on to something (I could be wrong about this, can't remember). Plenty of sidewinders have been "boresighted" in vietnam against ground targets, but if a sparrow hit anything on the ground, it's because the Phantom was too low to the ground when it launched it (sparrow is a "drop-fire" weapon) and it hit something on the ground before reaching the mig racing at tree-top level. The Phoenix missile is the same way (it drops away from the aircraft before the rocket motor fires). Because of this, even if you could fire the missile without first aquiring a "tone", it would be difficult to boresight it simply because there's no telling for sure what the missile will do once it leaves the LAU-92. Edited April 28, 2006 by Skull Leader
David Hingtgen Posted April 28, 2006 Posted April 28, 2006 Late model Phoenixes (Phoenixi?) can be launched on inertial guidance only, having no radar guidance until they turn their own on at close range. This might be an option only with the F-14D only when using the AIM-54C+. This is so you don't give someone a warning they're being locked on from 100 miles away. Almost all Phoenix launches involve several modes of guidance, switching between inertial, semi-active, and fully-active.
Skull Leader Posted April 28, 2006 Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) Late model Phoenixes (Phoenixi?) can be launched on inertial guidance only, having no radar guidance until they turn their own on at close range. This might be an option only with the F-14D only when using the AIM-54C+.  This is so you don't give someone a warning they're being locked on from 100 miles away.  Almost all Phoenix launches involve several modes of guidance, switching between inertial, semi-active, and fully-active. 394752[/snapback] Ah, so they CAN be released sans-radar lock. It's a shame that we had such an expensive weapon system that was so finnicky (to those who have no idea what I'm talking about, read back a page or two, when a pilot would "fire" a phoenix missile, it would just as often drop off the rack and NOT fire as it would actually go), we only fired one in anger, and we can't even confirm if it destroyed it's target or not! Still, it was never designed to be an anti-fighter missile, so I guess it's to be expected. Edited April 28, 2006 by Skull Leader
Phalanx Posted April 28, 2006 Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) It's good that I know more about the Pheonix missle thanx to you guy's answers. I honestly assumed that Pheonix missles were variable range A2A missles that can be used against airborne targets at short, medium, and long distances. I also honeslty assumed that the Pheonix was a "super missle" that was the best and ideal for most A2A engagements when it's not needed for dogfighting and only for just taking out targets a long distances. I guess that epitomizes why I don't see the Pheonix missle in most modern console flight sims and only see the F-14's in the games use Sidewinders and Sparrows. ( I have Air Force Delta, Air Force Delta Storm, and Top Gun Combat Zones for my GC.) Also, can a Pheonix missle be launcehd while the F-14 is traveling high speed with it's wing swept back in? I noticed that I see pics of the F-14 launching them while traveling at low speeds with their wings swept out to their maximum extension. Edited April 28, 2006 by Phalanx
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted April 28, 2006 Posted April 28, 2006 It's good that I know more about the Pheonix missle thanx to you guy's answers. I honestly assumed that Pheonix missles were variable range A2A missles that can be used against airborne targets at short, medium, and long distances. I also honeslty assumed that the Pheonix was a "super missle" that was the best and ideal for most A2A engagements when it's not needed for dogfighting and only for just taking out targets a long distances. I guess that epitomizes why I don't see the Pheonix missle in most modern console flight sims and only see the F-14's in the games use Sidewinders and Sparrows. ( I have Air Force Delta, Air Force Delta Storm, and Top Gun Combat Zones for my GC.) Also, can a Pheonix missle be launcehd while the F-14 is traveling high speed with it's wing swept back in? I noticed that I see pics of the F-14 launching them while traveling at low speeds with their wings swept out to their maximum extension. 394795[/snapback] Yes it can, high speed gives the missle a lot more momentum. And besides if the tomcats were going high speed, you wouldn't be able to see the missle launch well from the camera. The chase fighter would have to be flying pretty fast. ERTL FORCE ONE FANS!! Our prayers have been answered! http://www.ertlforceone.com/ Still having trouble finding a flying fighters site, ring raiders, and that one line with tiger striped F-14s(smaller line was diecast, bigger line had joysticks....all tiger striped I believe in red, yellow and blue).
Skull Leader Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 The thing you have to remember about the phoenix missile is, it was designed to flight a non-existent threat (wave after wave of Soviet bear bombers during the ass-end of the nuclear scare... it turns out that they had far fewer Bear bombers than we thought they did). what it was NOT designed to do was fight the much smaller "fast-mover" community. While the AIM-54 has a speed of well over Mach 3, it has a turning radius like a SR-71 Blackbird flying at top speed (which isn't really much of a turning radius at all). Which basically means it's easy to dodge. Even the slightest turn could defeat the shooting solution if it was timed right. Even your most basic fighter jets today could fumble an AIM-54 without too much effort (if they knew it was coming) So in reality it's only good against two kinds of targets: Those that are slow and turn ponderously (heavy duty prop-driven bombers), or Super Sonic targets that can't really turn (other fighter jets in a high speed run, or Jet bombers which turn like your average chevrolet)
David Hingtgen Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 AIM-54's were designed to be launched supersonically I would assume, since their primary use is emergency high-speed interception of bombers/fleet defense--which means the F-14 is running as fast as it possibly can when it launches. Phoenix has one neat aspect I rarely see mentioned---when used at long ranges it follows a ballistic profile like an ICBM. It goes WAY up, then dives down at tremendous speed. Most pilots aren't used to dodging a ballistic projectile from above, and they're used to watching for smoke trails etc from below or the side---if you're flying along at 35,000ft, you're probably not watching for missiles from above that had their motor burn out long ago.
Skull Leader Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 AIM-54's were designed to be launched supersonically I would assume, since their primary use is emergency high-speed interception of bombers/fleet defense--which means the F-14 is running as fast as it possibly can when it launches. Phoenix has one neat aspect I rarely see mentioned---when used at long ranges it follows a ballistic profile like an ICBM. It goes WAY up, then dives down at tremendous speed. Most pilots aren't used to dodging a ballistic projectile from above, and they're used to watching for smoke trails etc from below or the side---if you're flying along at 35,000ft, you're probably not watching for missiles from above that had their motor burn out long ago. 394968[/snapback] I learned that quite some time back. For the longest time I assumed ALL radar-guided air-to-air missiles performed the same way. I later learned otherwise.
buddhafabio Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 found this release on fark. i am sure it is old news but thought some here might like the read. China Develops Export-oriented Fighter Plane China has developed an advanced, multipurpose light fighter plane to meet the needs of overseas customers, the official national Economic Daily reported on Wednesday. The recent maiden flight of the plane, named Xiaolong/FC-1, or fierce dragon, proved successful in Wenjiang Airport in Chengdu, capital of southwest China's Sichuan Province. During the show, the plane demonstrated its outstanding mobility, good interception and ground attack capability, according to the report. With advanced design and manufacturing technology, the plane has the comprehensive combat capability of a third generation fighter plane and is on par with the world's most advanced fighter planes, the report said. The report said the plane is small in size and low in cost and suitable for modern warfare and the demands of military fighters. It took about four years for Chengdu Aircraft Group Corp, in cooperation with China Aero Technology Import & Export Co, to develop the plane. (Xinhua News Agency September 4, 2003) http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Sep/74234.htm
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 I heard the FC-1 was underpowered and not as promising as they made it out to be. CORGI and Dragon models owners....are Corgi's more durable? I am beginning to think(by pctures) that they might be, I hear Corgi's are more like solid slabs of metal, whereas Dragon models are put togethere with mostly diecast and minimal plastic, but if anything definitely a pre built model kit rather than a slab of metal molded with some parts added on. I need something to zoom around the apartment, the dragon models I have are cool(F-15C/F-16C) and the eagle is quite heavy which I like, however just by zooming those around the pad, I can definitely tell they aren't made to be played with. Corgi's look more durable in several instances from what I can tell. Any opinions/thoughts? How durable are the Forces of Valor models? The F-14A black knight they have looks AWESOME, and might be more durable than Dragon's, hell it looks better and a lot more accurate as well. Can't wait till it comes out, hopefully it shows up at target! Right now, topgun.jp and badcataviation.com have it.
David Hingtgen Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Corgis are more durable. They're simply "heftier" than Dragon. Most of them aren't as "finely cast" though. Also, they are much more difficult to deal with the gear and gear doors etc than Dragon. Weapons are usually permanent, drop tanks removable.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Corgis are more durable. They're simply "heftier" than Dragon. Most of them aren't as "finely cast" though. Also, they are much more difficult to deal with the gear and gear doors etc than Dragon. Weapons are usually permanent, drop tanks removable. 395133[/snapback] Ah thats alright, I usually display mine in flight. Looks to me that Corgi and FOV might be more suited to my tastes. Anyone got FOV's? They are 10$/super cheap at target.
Noyhauser Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Thought you guys might find this interesting: French company in the race for selling fighter aircraft http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/arti...40&parent_id=22
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Thought you guys might find this interesting:French company in the race for selling fighter aircraft http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/arti...40&parent_id=22 395474[/snapback] LOL I'm surprised they weren't selling another Mirage. I'm betting the sale will end up betwee the fulcrum and super bug.
David Hingtgen Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Has the Rafale sold to anyone besides France itself? It's doing surprisingly poorly.
Nied Posted May 2, 2006 Author Posted May 2, 2006 The FC-1 looks to be about equivalent to the PAF's F-16As (that's apparently what they and China were shooting for). I could see it becoming a good fighter for poorer Air forces looking to replace their Mig-21s or F-5s. Dassault actually did offer the Mirage 2000 to the IAF, however delays on a final decision from India finally forced them to withdraw their proposal in frustration. Apparently the only thing holding the Mirage 2000 plant open were the prospects of an Indian order, and after a while the price of keeping the plant open outweighed the money to be made from a prospective order. All the same since now the Indians have a chance of becoming the first export customers for the Rafale which has had truly awful luck to date.
Phalanx Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 (edited) Well Dave, all I know is that Dassault is more than willing to sell to their Rafale's off to any other country that currently uses their older generation fighters. I have a good feeling that some African nations like Nigeria and all of those other French/African nations may be customers for the Rafale sometime in the foreseeable future. In addition to that, I believe that most of these African nations may be potential customers to the JAS-39 Gripen since it's remotely cheap and easy to maintain. If you ask me, I think that most of these African nations may just stick to buying aircraft from Europe like the EFA2000 since they are stereotypically known to be cheap and not very appealing to other developed nations. Edited May 2, 2006 by Phalanx
Knight26 Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 Oh man, I am going through some training at work this week and you would not believe some the FOUO (For Official Use Only) info I have learned about aircraft like the F-22, F-35, and V-22. It really makes you wonder about what the air force and the US military aviation community in general are doing and thinking. Some of the stuff I already know but since I do not know what all is unclassified I can't talk too much about it, but man I would hate to have to be flying an F-22 anytime in the next few years. At least until a radically redone B model is made.
Lynx7725 Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 Oh man, I am going through some training at work this week and you would not believe some the FOUO (For Official Use Only) info I have learned about aircraft like the F-22, F-35, and V-22. It really makes you wonder about what the air force and the US military aviation community in general are doing and thinking. Some of the stuff I already know but since I do not know what all is unclassified I can't talk too much about it, but man I would hate to have to be flying an F-22 anytime in the next few years. At least until a radically redone B model is made. 395668[/snapback] That bad? If you feel that way about the F-22 (which by accounts is a fairly ok plane), I hate to think about the F-35. The V-22, it's a new-ish concept, so not surprising to have teething problems. What's surprising is that it's been having teething problems for what, over a decade now?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 Oh man, I am going through some training at work this week and you would not believe some the FOUO (For Official Use Only) info I have learned about aircraft like the F-22, F-35, and V-22. It really makes you wonder about what the air force and the US military aviation community in general are doing and thinking. Some of the stuff I already know but since I do not know what all is unclassified I can't talk too much about it, but man I would hate to have to be flying an F-22 anytime in the next few years. At least until a radically redone B model is made. 395668[/snapback] Is it just unsafe to fly for a pilot? Perhaps the FBW and digital avionics/weapons systems have yet to mature? Also I did hear@ARC that the F-22 CAN do a cobra, but we probably won't see it until the airshow demos start. Which is next year.
Recommended Posts