Phyrox Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 No, no, no! Repeat after me. "The single seat Eurofighter Typhoon is the most beautiful plane in the world". All other planes are hideous by comparison. Graham The Ki-46 / type-100 command reconnaissance aircraft sneers at your vulgar lawn dart. Saying a eurofighter is beautiful is like saying a countach is graceful. It is many things, but beautiful is not one of them.
David Hingtgen Posted February 3, 2007 Author Posted February 3, 2007 Hey, I still rank the Countach as the coolest car of all time... (and yes, I prefer later versions with all the extra bits tacked on--87/88 is the best)
buddhafabio Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 Hey, I still rank the Countach as the coolest car of all time... (and yes, I prefer later versions with all the extra bits tacked on--87/88 is the best) mixing your threads again?
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 Pop up headlights are the pimpest feature. Wished they still made em.
F-ZeroOne Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 Well, generally twin tails are used when you can't fit a single large tail. I think part of the reason is simply that most delta canards are pretty small, with a narrow rear fuselage (usually single engine, or two small ones) and there's not really room to have side-by-side fins. The Germans were actually working on a Euro-delta/canard of their own back in the 80s - that wouldn't have had a tail at all! And as for the Typhoon being ugly - you just cross the pond and come and say that. Come and 'ave a go if you think you're 'ard enough!
Nied Posted February 4, 2007 Posted February 4, 2007 The Typhoon certainly isn't ugly but I wouldn't say its the prettiest aircraft in the world. IMHO the Rafale definitely wins the prize for best looking eurocanard.
Nied Posted February 4, 2007 Posted February 4, 2007 Thx! I still haven't found the lineart I was looking for, but then again the article is 1 or 2 years old and the mag is boxed up somewhere, so it'll take some time before I'll find it. Anyway, here's an page from a more recent article. It's from Combat Aircraft, nov '06. I marked the paragraph that deals with the discussion wether or not the J-10 is a "carbon copy" or simply a reverse engineered and modified Lavi, or an original design. I've added some Lavi line art as well. It's funny that we're basing many of our judgments on the same article in Combat Aircraft. The writers use quite a few rhetorical flourishes to make the J-10 sound like an original aircraft but when you look at the actual facts presented in the article it's pretty clear that the J-10 is just a Lavi knock off.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 4, 2007 Posted February 4, 2007 The Germans were actually working on a Euro-delta/canard of their own back in the 80s - that wouldn't have had a tail at all! I find tailess aircraft ugly. Something is just not right. Having one fin too many is also odd IMHO (like the Super Flanker), canards and elevators on the same plane just doesn't do it for me. Sticking canards on something with 'ruddervators'(ok i know its not the technically correct term) is also wrong in my book.
RFT Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Is there any significant reason why twin tails don't go with the delta/canard config? The Mig1.44 is a rare one. I never liked the big-arsed single fins. Well, had everything gone to plan from the genesis of the project in the early 80s, the typhoon would have had two tails: here's the original concept, the MBB TKF-90... and the british "P.110" concept these went together to form the trinational "ACA" project The project lost the twin fins when the EAP demonstrator was built- it was going to be a joint build by MBB and BAe with the germans doing the back and the british doing the front. when the germans pulled funding, the plane was finished by BAe using the rear end of a tornado. so when the time came to finalise the specs fo the Eurofighter, it was based around the EAP single-fin layout as that's what there was the test data for. It might be national bias, but I do think the Typhoon is a beautiful aircraft (possibly the first truly beautiful aircraft the RAF have operated since the Hunter. we've had some great planes, but none of them you'd described as beautiful) and don't really see how one could confuse it for the gripen or rafale - Totally different intakes for starters. What it isn't is forward-looking or futuristic. Going back a few pages, remebner we were talking about the Hind, and how it looks a bit assymettrical from head-on? They definitely are. I went to my local air museum (midland air museum at coventry) and they've got one, the BAE Systems show-chopper for when they were selling an upgrade program. The effect is really noticable when you're standing in front of it Edited February 6, 2007 by RFT
Warmaker Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 (edited) In all honesty, I can't identify the difference between the various, new European fighters. So I can't tell which looks great over the other. For great looking, active combat aircraft my Top 3 are: 1) F-15 Eagle - Big, powerful, sleek and elegant. I've loved the look of the Eagle since I saw it as a kid. 2) A-10 Warthog - Ugly to alot of people but I loved the look of it when I built a model of one as a kid in the 80's (1/72 MPC kit). Tacking on all the ordnance was fun, too 3) F-16 Fighting Falcon - When my Mom and I finally arrived in the USA to reunite with my Dad, I recall he had a 1/72 scale Israeli F-16 on a table. I loved the look of the jet ever since. The Israeli paint scheme and insignia gave it an extra, unique look. Noteworthy: The Russian Su-27 and its various derivatives. Looks great in the same ways as an F-15. Past No.1: The F-14 Tomcat, especially with the colorful paint schemes from the 70's-80's. My favorite squadron markings were from VF-84 / VF-103 Jolly Rogers and the one with the Japanese-style Bursting Sun on the vertical stabs. But these birds are gone now from US service. Edited February 6, 2007 by Warmaker
kalvasflam Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 In all honesty, I can't identify the difference between the various, new European fighters. So I can't tell which looks great over the other. That's probably because all the European fighters were carbon copies of each other.... heh heh Sorry, couldn't help myself. One of my personal favorites, probably the precusor of these planes. The F-16XL.
Phyrox Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 It might be national bias, but I do think the Typhoon is a beautiful aircraft (possibly the first truly beautiful aircraft the RAF have operated since the Hunter. we've had some great planes, but none of them you'd described as beautiful) and don't really see how one could confuse it for the gripen or rafale - Totally different intakes for starters. Hunter, beautiful? Looks to me like the most "generic fighter" design ever. Nothing to get excited about that I can find. It's like the Honda Civic of aircraft aesthetics. I mean, to each their own, but as plain looking as the new Typhoon is I think you do it a dis-service by comparing it to a Hunter. But you raise a good point...you have to go back pretty far to find an inspired British aircraft design. British aircraft of the 20s and 30s could be gorgeous, as could some of their 1940s designs. Then what happened? The only plane that makes me look twice is the Victor (and I know I am mostly alone in that). The Hunter though? Seriously? Is that generally considered a nice looking craft over there? I guess it must be, now that I remember some of the things I've read about it in books by British authors...but I always figured it was due to a few Brits having bad taste, not the whole island. I've always had strange taste myself of course, but the Hunter (and the Eurofighter) is soooo plain.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 (edited) I kinda like the hunter too. It's not the sleekest even for its time but it looks 'purposeful' to me. If the TSR-2 had made it into production, it would have been one of my all time favourite British aircraft. Edited February 6, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Graham Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 English Electric Lightning was a beautifly aircraft, but not the 2-seater version. Graham
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 English Electric Lightning was a beautifly aircraft, but not the 2-seater version. Graham The over-and-under engines were cool, but I was never a fan of the 'cone-nose' intake. Other then that, I like the Lightning. Very 60/70s 'Hot-Rod' looks.
Nied Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 English Electric Lightning was a beautifly aircraft, but not the 2-seater version. Graham Or the single seat version. Honestly with the engines stacked on top of each other, the weird cheek mounted missiles, the odd overwing tanks and that bulged belly tank making it look pregnant I have never understood why so many Britons think it's a good looking airplane.
Nied Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 IMHO the last really good looking military aircraft from the UK (discounting the Typhoon of course) would be the Avro Vulcan. Now there was a pretty aircraft.
F-ZeroOne Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Or the single seat version. Honestly with the engines stacked on top of each other, the weird cheek mounted missiles, the odd overwing tanks and that bulged belly tank making it look pregnant I have never understood why so many Britons think it's a good looking airplane. Doesn't matter - it was so bloody fast all you'd see would be a pretty streak of silver anyway.
F-ZeroOne Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 I kinda like the hunter too. It's not the sleekest even for its time but it looks 'purposeful' to me. In the UK, the Hunter is usually regarded as one of the prettiest jet aircraft of all time. And she sings, too!
RFT Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 The Hunter is perfectly proportioned, cleanly detailed and elegant. in automotive terms it's a jaguar D-type. I did think a lot about other post-war RAF aircraft before coming to my conclusion... for the most part, I think we've operated either good-looking "masculine" aircraft: vulcan, tornado, javelin, phantom. big, powerful, but not what you'd call elegant. I think one of the reasons the lightning has such popularity in the UK is that it was used as a great canvas for squadron markings. while most RAF planes were being painted in the same drab green/grey cammo, lightings were in the raw silver with brightly colored tails and spines, and massive high-vis roundels.
RFT Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 (edited) double post... Edited February 6, 2007 by RFT
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Anyone here ever witnessed a Tu-95 in flight? How loud is it? I find it pretty surprising that pilots flying in other aircraft near it still find it uncomfortably loud. Must be one heck of a racket if its true.
Coota0 Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 I think the Hawk is pretty, but I also think the Apache is pretty.
Nied Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Doesn't matter - it was so bloody fast all you'd see would be a pretty streak of silver anyway. That is until it ran out of gas three minutes into the flight. I think one of the reasons the lightning has such popularity in the UK is that it was used as a great canvas for squadron markings. while most RAF planes were being painted in the same drab green/grey cammo, lightings were in the raw silver with brightly colored tails and spines, and massive high-vis roundels. I hadn't thought about that. Lightnings rivaled the US Navy for striking paint schemes in that era.
Awacs Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 I must admit I think that the Lightning had a certain charm to it. But then, I am rather partial to many of the aircraft that were used by the RAF in the late seventies and early eighties. I think it may be something to do with growing up next to a major RAF maintenance base - we had pretty much everything in the inventory going in and out of the place, and after a while it seems to get into your blood. Whilst I would agree that things like the Lightning are not conventionally "pretty" aircraft there was something about their no-nonsense utilitarianism that I rather like. But then, one of my favourite aircraft is the Jaguar - which looks a bit like it was made out of boxes and then had the nose-end sharpened in a pencil sharpener so I may not be the best judge of aircraft attractiveness. Karl
F-ZeroOne Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 That is until it ran out of gas three minutes into the flight. Okay, yes, but what a three minutes.
David Hingtgen Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 It's officially the MiG-35 now--it says so on the nose! And like all planes, it looks coolest with as many missiles as it can hold.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) It's officially the MiG-35 now--it says so on the nose! And like all planes, it looks coolest with as many missiles as it can hold. Looks good. Whats the big lump underneath the starboard side? Some sensor? Hope India buys it. Edited February 8, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Warmaker Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) Looks good. Whats the big lump underneath the starboard side? Some sensor? Hope India buys it. I'm guessing it's targetting gear like the Lightning Pod, FLIR, etc. Edited February 8, 2007 by Warmaker
T.V. Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Yup. Looks like a laser designator and IR targeting pod. In terms of avionics this aircraft could be in the range of the F-16 block 50 - 60, I reckon. Would probably be the first all aspect TVC plane in service, if the Indians buy it for their M-MRCA requirement. Is nice![/borat]
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Does this have the big flaps of the MIG-33? Those look awesome.
kalvasflam Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 I hope Iran buys a bunch. Mig 35 that is.... haven't looked at the stats, but what's so different about the Mig 35 vs the standard Mig 29?
David Hingtgen Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 This shows the pod a bit better, and also here's the last pic I have.
Loner Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) It's officially the MiG-35 now--it says so on the nose! And like all planes, it looks coolest with as many missiles as it can hold. It looks nice, not quiet the coolness of the Su-37, but it looks nice. Edited February 8, 2007 by Loner
Zentrandude Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 I'm guessing it's targetting gear like the Lightning Pod, FLIR, etc. That or a laser jammer to protect it from ground troups using stingers, I figure with todays battlefield you want to keep your standard flares/chaffs for the aircraft and not waste them on numeraous troops with stringers.
Recommended Posts