Aircraft Vs Super Thread VI

[Shadow]

Libya plane news:

Canada and Denmark have now engaged in actual combat (as opposed to just patrol/escort).

Italy's Harriers on the Garibaldi in the area, but not deployed. Naval Rafales now operating from the De Gaulle but I don't know if they've actually bombed yet.

Sweden's Gripens on standby and are "requested" by Nato, but Sweden won't deploy until it's confirmed who will be leading the coalition and the order of battle after the US stands down from the lead next week.

Turkey has committed Naval forces but still adamantly opposed to air operations.

Also, Libya has SA-24 SAMs guarding Tripoli. This is more advanced than most anything else out there and Libya's not supposed to have them. Basically a bad-ass version of the Stinger with a 20,000ft envelope.

I can't find any info on an SA-24, let alone something of that sophistication in Libyan hands Or were you referring to the SA-18?

To comment on the F-14. The airframe just wouldn't be suited for an FSW as pointed out already. It was meant for the interception role and fleet protection. I read it's agility wasn't that far off from that of the F-4 actually.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Shadow

[Vifam7]

Good evening,

This is totally off topic from the previous post, however, I need assistance and I believe this has to do something with aircraft --I hope--.

I am trying to come with a research paper for a class at my university, and it's going to be based on the retired f-14. My proposal for the paper is to insist the f-14 be brought back in service by making it lighter (don't have a conclusion for that yet)cheaper, and more efficient. Since the f-14 turn rate is pretty slow compare to the f-18, I was thinking of making the f-14 famous variable-sweep wing into a variable forward-sweep wing; this should decrease the lateral stability and more blah blah blah to get to the 20th page. I have more ideas; however I don't want to bore you guys.

But the point of this post was to ask if anyone is willing to share some sites that contain TONS and TONS of aircraft information from general aviation to military.

Don't get me wrong, I did some leg work myself; however, the Florida Tech resource facility suck @#$%^&*, and the sites that I've looked at are pretty sketchy(fan-boys everywhere I guess). Wikipedia is a great source but I can't use only one source; I also question its accuracy.

Thank you for your time!

If one deletes the swing-wing feature from the Tomcat, then I would think the whole structure of the aircraft needs to change. I'm no aerodynamist but logically speaking you just can't slap FSWs on an aircraft and say it's done - especially, I would think, to an aircraft that was specifically designed for the swing wing. At best the only part from the original Tomcat you could probably use is the forward fuselage. For the time and work needed to convert a Tomcat to a FSW aircraft, it would more than likely be easier and cheaper to start from scratch.

[Audentia]

What's the paper for may I ask? like what's the class focus? I think you'll find a wide range of perspectives on here if you ask.

It is for my Aeronautic 2 class.

My professor wanted us to base our paper on a current aircraft and explain why did the aerospace engineers decide to build it this way, and how can we change it to make it better. I was thinking of spy planes like SR-71, however, after watching "Macross Zero", I've switched to the F-14.

My rough draft will consist of these questions(and more once I get an outline): why did it retired, and what factors can I put in it to make it as useful as the f-18 or other navel aircraft and hopefully I can expand it into a 20 page paper.

It's a daunting paper . I guess he's trying to change pilots into engineers, but am fine with that, the informations I've been reading are intriguing.

What I need is information, tons and tons of information on f-14/f-18. F-14/f-18 fan boys are fine too

Am just a noobie trying to get his P.P.L so any other suggestions for the f-14 e.g delta wing f-14, or thrust vectors for the f-14 etc would be great. I just need a reason why and then I'll go do some research and expand.

Thank you!

[Shadow]

It looks like a Rafale downed a Libyan G-2 trainer. Though some reports say it was hit as it was on the runway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12850975

[David Hingtgen]

I can't find any info on an SA-24, let alone something of that sophistication in Libyan hands Or were you referring to the SA-18?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aabcd011c-bc5d-4b32-a87b-3f60b4e42e8c&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

[Knight26]

It is for my Aeronautic 2 class.

My professor wanted us to base our paper on a current aircraft and explain why did the aerospace engineers decide to build it this way, and how can we change it to make it better. I was thinking of spy planes like SR-71, however, after watching "Macross Zero", I've switched to the F-14.

My rough draft will consist of these questions(and more once I get an outline): why did it retired, and what factors can I put in it to make it as useful as the f-18 or other navel aircraft and hopefully I can expand it into a 20 page paper.

It's a daunting paper . I guess he's trying to change pilots into engineers, but am fine with that, the informations I've been reading are intriguing.

What I need is information, tons and tons of information on f-14/f-18. F-14/f-18 fan boys are fine too

Am just a noobie trying to get his P.P.L so any other suggestions for the f-14 e.g delta wing f-14, or thrust vectors for the f-14 etc would be great. I just need a reason why and then I'll go do some research and expand.

Thank you!

You've set yourself up for a daunting task wanting to try and justify bringing back the F-14. If you want a ton of stuff on the F-14, go here:

http://www.anft.net/

They are F-14 fanatics there. As for how to bring back the F-14, Tomcat 2000 was a good proposal and incorporated a lot of what DH mentioned. Unfortunately as DH mentioned the F-14 was a maintenance hog, and it just got harder the older she got. Turning her into an FSW, epic fail, the design just doesn't work for it, you can't just slap new wings on a plane and expect it to fly. Now, does this paper have to be on a combat aircraft? Taking on that subject alone increases the complexity of your paper.

I'm confused a little by some of your earlier comments, is this an engineering class or what? What is the degree program, what school?

Also go look over on www.up-ship.com and search the blog, he has a lot of data on various planes, modificiations, what ifs, etc... Some of the APR back catalog might have some data you could use as well. Also how technical is this paper suppossed to get?

[F-ZeroOne]

Good evening,

This is totally off topic from the previous post, however, I need assistance and I believe this has to do something with aircraft --I hope--.

I am trying to come with a research paper for a class at my university, and it's going to be based on the retired f-14. My proposal for the paper is to insist the f-14 be brought back in service by making it lighter (don't have a conclusion for that yet)cheaper, and more efficient. Since the f-14 turn rate is pretty slow compare to the f-18, I was thinking of making the f-14 famous variable-sweep wing into a variable forward-sweep wing; this should decrease the lateral stability and more blah blah blah to get to the 20th page. I have more ideas; however I don't want to bore you guys.

But the point of this post was to ask if anyone is willing to share some sites that contain TONS and TONS of aircraft information from general aviation to military.

Don't get me wrong, I did some leg work myself; however, the Florida Tech resource facility suck @#$%^&*, and the sites that I've looked at are pretty sketchy(fan-boys everywhere I guess). Wikipedia is a great source but I can't use only one source; I also question its accuracy.

Thank you for your time!

I'm definitely no expert, but you might want to look into Grummans "Tomcat 21" proposal - this was to be an updated Tomcat proposed as a cheaper (for a given value of "cheap"!)alternative to the now aborted Naval ATF (essentially, naval F-22 or F-23) requirement. One of the things they proposed was making the Tomcat easier to maintain. In fact, I believe a swing-wing F-22 was even proposed for that requirement as well!It is also possible to update aircraft designs to a degree; the Strike Eagle is a similar shape to a "standard" Eagle but rather different structurally (designed to carry heavier payloads).

Edit: oops, Knight26 got in just ahead of me!

Edited March 24, 2011 by F-ZeroOne

[Noyhauser]

I wanted to post this earlier but the forum wasn't loading for me.

It is for my Aeronautic 2 class.

My professor wanted us to base our paper on a current aircraft and explain why did the aerospace engineers decide to build it this way, and how can we change it to make it better. I was thinking of spy planes like SR-71, however, after watching "Macross Zero", I've switched to the F-14.

Truth be told there is actually alot more out there on the A-12 (The SR-71's predecessor) than the F-14. Most of if is very high quality primary source documentation and primary source interviews. The main reason why is because the CIA did a massive information dump in the last few years (Including a trove of documents), and the Udvar Hazy centre held

with a series of former engineers you can find on youtube.

On top of that you can find Clarence Johnson's book fairly cheap.

The A-12 to me is probably the pinnacle of US aerospace engineering, not just for its actual capabilities but how its designers actually worked and produced it. As you'll see in that video, one of the engineers lamented that it took them two years and 100 engineers to put together the A-12; it took Rockwell 5000 engineers and almost three times that time to build the B-1.

My rough draft will consist of these questions(and more once I get an outline): why did it retired, and what factors can I put in it to make it as useful as the f-18 or other navel aircraft and hopefully I can expand it into a 20 page paper.

It's a daunting paper . I guess he's trying to change pilots into engineers, but am fine with that, the informations I've been reading are intriguing.

What I need is information, tons and tons of information on f-14/f-18. F-14/f-18 fan boys are fine too

Well the question is one of cost. Yeah we could all put together a pretty slick design (Bring back the flying dorito!) but the reality is that cost is of paramount importance. One of the reasons why Variable geometry has basically died is the prohibitive costs of these systems both in production and maintenance. The other is a refinement of air combat principles since the Vietnam war. The F-14 was really a pre-Vietnam design; heavy with so-so maneuverability, it was designed to be a fleet defender carrying a number of large stand-off missiles. Most designs post 1970, were built with particular attributes... top end speed was less important (the JSF only asked for Mach 1.6, which was the top usable speed outlined by the lightweight fighter proponents in the 1970s.)

The other issue is that you have to understand why the F-14 was the Navy's attempt to get out of the F-111 program... that lead to a lot of critical design decisions at Grumman.

Am just a noobie trying to get his P.P.L so any other suggestions for the f-14 e.g delta wing f-14, or thrust vectors for the f-14 etc would be great. I just need a reason why and then I'll go do some research and expand.

Honestly, I'd probably move away from the F-14... yeah it was a great design back in the day but was actually not nearly as good as was portrayed in popular media. David pointed out some of its flaws. The only reason why you'd keep it around was for its large payload and good range... however if that was the case you might as well push for the F-111B, because that had better payload and better range. And as David pointed out, the F-14 was utterly horrendous in its O&M department. Basically it was eating up huge amounts of the Navy's budget. Any redesign would need a completely new avionics architecture, and thats probably going to be the bulk of your development costs right there without even considering the feasibility of FSW or anything like that (Which Knight posted about)

The F/A-18E/F on the other hand is extremely modifiable; it has a dozen development spirals, completed, ongoing or planned. Its O&M was designed to be extremely affordable as well. That means more of them can be put into the air to carry out operations.

What was the paper's actual question?

[Audentia]

You've set yourself up for a daunting task wanting to try and justify bringing back the F-14. If you want a ton of stuff on the F-14, go here:

http://www.anft.net/

They are F-14 fanatics there. As for how to bring back the F-14, Tomcat 2000 was a good proposal and incorporated a lot of what DH mentioned. Unfortunately as DH mentioned the F-14 was a maintenance hog, and it just got harder the older she got. Turning her into an FSW, epic fail, the design just doesn't work for it, you can't just slap new wings on a plane and expect it to fly. Now, does this paper have to be on a combat aircraft? Taking on that subject alone increases the complexity of your paper.

I'm confused a little by some of your earlier comments, is this an engineering class or what? What is the degree program, what school?

Also go look over on www.up-ship.com and search the blog, he has a lot of data on various planes, modificiations, what ifs, etc... Some of the APR back catalog might have some data you could use as well. Also how technical is this paper suppossed to get?

Thanks for the info.

I am currently enrolled in Florida Institute of Technology in pursuit of aviation management with flight. The paper is for Aeronautics 2. The problem is the professor who is instructing us is a enthusiastic aerospace engineer. We are suppose to be learning about weather, regulations, systems, part 141, commercial etc; yet he drops a bomb on us with his research paper when he was -god knows how- young. Am fine with that since am interested in these kinds of topics,but I am just a fledgling. Right now I don't have a foundation to stand on so I have no clue what am talking about; thus I need information. He had two 20 pages research paper (tiger sharks f-20s) for us and in it is a bunch on engineer's lingo I don't even understand except for huds, force divergence Mach number and a few other; the rest was a lost cause.

Also it does not have to be on combat aircraft, but if am going to do a 20 page research paper, it better be something that prevents me from crying every-time I yawn. I mean writing about the piper warriors or Cessna sky hawks is a lot easier than f-14s; however, I do training in those every odd days and it gets old after awhile.

[Audentia]

I'm definitely no expert, but you might want to look into Grummans "Tomcat 21" proposal - this was to be an updated Tomcat proposed as a cheaper (for a given value of "cheap"!)alternative to the now aborted Naval ATF (essentially, naval F-22 or F-23) requirement. One of the things they proposed was making the Tomcat easier to maintain. In fact, I believe a swing-wing F-22 was even proposed for that requirement as well!It is also possible to update aircraft designs to a degree; the Strike Eagle is a similar shape to a "standard" Eagle but rather different structurally (designed to carry heavier payloads).

Edit: oops, Knight26 got in just ahead of me!

Thanks I'll definitely see what they mean by cheap alternative. If not am going to do a research on the Bis-14 or Sikorsky "first hop"..................yeah right!

[Audentia]

I wanted to post this earlier but the forum wasn't loading for me.

Truth be told there is actually alot more out there on the A-12 (The SR-71's predecessor) than the F-14. Most of if is very high quality primary source documentation and primary source interviews. The main reason why is because the CIA did a massive information dump in the last few years (Including a trove of documents), and the Udvar Hazy centre held

with a series of former engineers you can find on youtube.

On top of that you can find Clarence Johnson's book fairly cheap.

The A-12 to me is probably the pinnacle of US aerospace engineering, not just for its actual capabilities but how its designers actually worked and produced it. As you'll see in that video, one of the engineers lamented that it took them two years and 100 engineers to put together the A-12; it took Rockwell 5000 engineers and almost three times that time to build the B-1.

Well the question is one of cost. Yeah we could all put together a pretty slick design (Bring back the flying dorito!) but the reality is that cost is of paramount importance. One of the reasons why Variable geometry has basically died is the prohibitive costs of these systems both in production and maintenance. The other is a refinement of air combat principles since the Vietnam war. The F-14 was really a pre-Vietnam design; heavy with so-so maneuverability, it was designed to be a fleet defender carrying a number of large stand-off missiles. Most designs post 1970, were built with particular attributes... top end speed was less important (the JSF only asked for Mach 1.6, which was the top usable speed outlined by the lightweight fighter proponents in the 1970s.)

The other issue is that you have to understand why the F-14 was the Navy's attempt to get out of the F-111 program... that lead to a lot of critical design decisions at Grumman.

Honestly, I'd probably move away from the F-14... yeah it was a great design back in the day but was actually not nearly as good as was portrayed in popular media. David pointed out some of its flaws. The only reason why you'd keep it around was for its large payload and good range... however if that was the case you might as well push for the F-111B, because that had better payload and better range. And as David pointed out, the F-14 was utterly horrendous in its O&M department. Basically it was eating up huge amounts of the Navy's budget. Any redesign would need a completely new avionics architecture, and thats probably going to be the bulk of your development costs right there without even considering the feasibility of FSW or anything like that (Which Knight posted about)

The F/A-18E/F on the other hand is extremely modifiable; it has a dozen development spirals, completed, ongoing or planned. Its O&M was designed to be extremely affordable as well. That means more of them can be put into the air to carry out operations.

What was the paper's actual question?

Whoa...thank you for your time.

Yeah after reading the responses from this community, things aren't look so well for my paper. I'll check the links you guys provided me and decide if I want to tackle this. Also I thought the f-111b was worst than the f-14. I've check this aircraft before and according to wiki, it crashed 3 out of 7 experiments and the other other 4 was scrapped.

As for the paper it really does not have a question; more like you create your own question. However, it must include factors why engineers build this aircraft a certain way e.g why delta and not a high aspect ratio wing. Why use this engine, load factors and all the other good stuff

[Noyhauser]

Whoa...thank you for your time.

Yeah after reading the responses from this community, things aren't look so well for my paper. I'll check the links you guys provided me and decide if I want to tackle this. Also I thought the f-111b was worst than the f-14. I've check this aircraft before and according to wiki, it crashed 3 out of 7 experiments and the other other 4 was scrapped.

Eh, The F-111 was inferior to the F-14 because the Navy changed the goalposts to make it that way. It actually had a greater payload (and carryback weight), longer legs and a more forgiving design. The broad arrangement of the F-14's engines was a dangerous design choice because of the unreliability of the TF-30 engine. However the F-14 was more maneuverable, had a gun and had some superior flight characteristics compared to the F-111. The F-111 would be a poor dog-fighter but a very good fleet defence fighter... The 14 was a decent fighter but a just a good fleet defence fighter. If you're talking about adding a bombing role, then its arguable that the F-111B might have been a better choice... but thats an argument for another day.

As for the paper it really does not have a question; more like you create your own question. However, it must include factors why engineers build this aircraft a certain way e.g why delta and not a high aspect ratio wing. Why use this engine, load factors and all the other good stuff

Okay, see we can work with that here... I'm sure David and Knight can give very good explanations of physical effects of various design choices, while I can give the military/political rationale for various project specifications (as can they too). I've also got quite a bit on the F-35 if you're interested in that project.

[Vifam7]

Whoa...thank you for your time.

Yeah after reading the responses from this community, things aren't look so well for my paper. I'll check the links you guys provided me and decide if I want to tackle this. Also I thought the f-111b was worst than the f-14. I've check this aircraft before and according to wiki, it crashed 3 out of 7 experiments and the other other 4 was scrapped.

Accidents are nothing really surprising for test programmes.

The F-111B failed because the requirements for it were formulated before experiences in Vietnam. Vietnam experience told both the navy and air force that more agile fighters are needed. Thus the requirements changed to the point where the F-111B was no longer suitable. Ofcourse it probably didn;t help that the Navy hated having an air force plane hoisted upon them. The F-111B probably would've been just fine as a Phoenix missile shooter (which was its original requirement).

Edited March 24, 2011 by Vifam7

[Audentia]

Eh, The F-111 was inferior to the F-14 because the Navy changed the goalposts to make it that way. It actually had a greater payload (and carryback weight), longer legs and a more forgiving design. The broad arrangement of the F-14's engines was a dangerous design choice because of the unreliability of the TF-30 engine. However the F-14 was more maneuverable, had a gun and had some superior flight characteristics compared to the F-111. The F-111 would be a poor dog-fighter but a very good fleet defence fighter... The 14 was a decent fighter but a just a good fleet defence fighter. If you're talking about adding a bombing role, then its arguable that the F-111B might have been a better choice... but thats an argument for another day.

Okay, see we can work with that here... I'm sure David and Knight can give very good explanations of physical effects of various design choices, while I can give the military/political rationale for various project specifications (as can they too). I've also got quite a bit on the F-35 if you're interested in that project.

Sweet! I'll be firing up questions once I decide and finish an outline.

[David Hingtgen]

If anyone knows how to embed Dailymotion here, let me know. French Navy posted a nice video of Libyan ops from the Charles De Gaulle:

[Coota0]

I'm definitely no expert, but you might want to look into Grummans "Tomcat 21" proposal - this was to be an updated Tomcat proposed as a cheaper (for a given value of "cheap"!)alternative to the now aborted Naval ATF (essentially, naval F-22 or F-23) requirement. One of the things they proposed was making the Tomcat easier to maintain. In fact, I believe a swing-wing F-22 was even proposed for that requirement as well!It is also possible to update aircraft designs to a degree; the Strike Eagle is a similar shape to a "standard" Eagle but rather different structurally (designed to carry heavier payloads).

Edited March 24, 2011 by Coota0

[David Hingtgen]

I've always wondered about the point of swing-wings on an ATF. They don't lack speed so don't need an increase in sweep angle vs the fixed design, and the swing-wing requires a large decrease in overall area, basically counteracting the low-speed lift increase (this is more notable with the -23 than the -22). I would imagine trading in the LE flaps for slats would be a better, simpler solution to getting more lift for takeoff and landing. The simple solution for "more lift" is "more wing", not "new wing that's smaller with more moving parts with less internal fuel capacity".

[Audentia]

You've set yourself up for a daunting task wanting to try and justify bringing back the F-14. If you want a ton of stuff on the F-14, go here:

http://www.anft.net/

They are F-14 fanatics there. As for how to bring back the F-14, Tomcat 2000 was a good proposal and incorporated a lot of what DH mentioned. Unfortunately as DH mentioned the F-14 was a maintenance hog, and it just got harder the older she got. Turning her into an FSW, epic fail, the design just doesn't work for it, you can't just slap new wings on a plane and expect it to fly. Now, does this paper have to be on a combat aircraft? Taking on that subject alone increases the complexity of your paper.

I'm confused a little by some of your earlier comments, is this an engineering class or what? What is the degree program, what school?

Also go look over on www.up-ship.com and search the blog, he has a lot of data on various planes, modificiations, what ifs, etc... Some of the APR back catalog might have some data you could use as well. Also how technical is this paper suppossed to get?

I finally have time to sit down and do work and thank you! This is precisely the information that I need!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I've always wondered about the point of swing-wings on an ATF. They don't lack speed so don't need an increase in sweep angle vs the fixed design, and the swing-wing requires a large decrease in overall area, basically counteracting the low-speed lift increase (this is more notable with the -23 than the -22). I would imagine trading in the LE flaps for slats would be a better, simpler solution to getting more lift for takeoff and landing. The simple solution for "more lift" is "more wing", not "new wing that's smaller with more moving parts with less internal fuel capacity".

Must be why Northrop and Mcdonnell ditched it for their NATF YF-23 proposal(which looked a lot different than I thought it would look).

BTW I was reading an aircraft magazine recently(forgot which, it's in Barnes n Nobles though), and there were images of an F/A-18C painted like a Hellcat. It's an homage to an old WWII squadron. Looked rather neat.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[David Hingtgen]

The Navy is painting a ton of planes in historic schemes. You can see most of them here: http://www.airfighters.com/page.php?id=107

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

The Navy is painting a ton of planes in historic schemes. You can see most of them here: http://www.airfighters.com/page.php?id=107

oooo thanks for the links, I dig the VX-9 bugs!

[David Hingtgen]

Hopefully this'll trigger a bit of nostalgia:

[Chronocidal]

Holy cow. I remember those fruit snacks. And.. I'm pretty sure I remember one of the boxes having a cut-out Tomcat you could make from the box. It was just a top plan view with a dividing segment in the middle that you folded into a ventral fin to throw it by, paper airplane style.. but I remember that thing flying pretty well (with a few modifications).

I do wish those special schemes would actually show up at China Lake sometime so I could see them though. I'm not sure they're painted on actual VX-5/9 aircraft, but I'd hope they'd use actual squadron aircraft for this.

I'm still waiting to see some nice 60's-70's high vis though, that era had a ton of memorable schemes.

[Shadow]

Hopefully this'll trigger a bit of nostalgia:

Those always made my school lunches better. Be interesting to see this brought back.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

LOL I remember Thunder Jets! Came out around the time Hasbro was making the Flying Fighters line.

There was also a toyline of tiger striped Tomcats that I cannot find info for. Think it was called Sky Dogs? Think the bigger ones had attachable joysticks and that there were also small diecast ones sans sticks.

[renegadeleader1]

LOL I remember Thunder Jets! Came out around the time Hasbro was making the Flying Fighters line.

There was also a toyline of tiger striped Tomcats that I cannot find info for. Think it was called Sky Dogs? Think the bigger ones had attachable joysticks and that there were also small diecast ones sans sticks.

the tiger striped fighters remind my of the "ring raiders" toy line. They were little planes almost like micro machines attached to plastic rings you put on your fingers. They came in squadron packs of 4 or 5 planes, and even had a flightstick you could attach them to.

[Chewie]

LOL I remember Thunder Jets! Came out around the time Hasbro was making the Flying Fighters line.

There was also a toyline of tiger striped Tomcats that I cannot find info for. Think it was called Sky Dogs? Think the bigger ones had attachable joysticks and that there were also small diecast ones sans sticks.

It was the Flying Fighters I was thinking of.

Edit: In my searching I found this. Not what we're talking about but still cool.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Chewie

[F-ZeroOne]

Helicopters can't loop, the movies tell us. No-one said anything about back-flips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3aEbVD7Sgw

Edited March 26, 2011 by F-ZeroOne

[VT 1010]

It thought the myth was you couldn't loop a helicopter unless Roy Scheider was flying it.

[eugimon]

Helicopters can't loop, the movies tell us. No-one said anything about back-flips:

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

the tiger striped fighters remind my of the "ring raiders" toy line. They were little planes almost like micro machines attached to plastic rings you put on your fingers. They came in squadron packs of 4 or 5 planes, and even had a flightstick you could attach them to.

I had ring raiders but they are smaller than the toyline I'm referring to. Plus ring raiders lacked Tomcats. The line I'm talking about I think was all Tomcats, I remember them being in red, yellow, and blue with tiger stripes. Smaller ones were the size of Skybusters, the bigger ones were smaller than 1/48 but bigger than 1/72.

[Coota0]

Must be why Northrop and Mcdonnell ditched it for their NATF YF-23 proposal(which looked a lot different than I thought it would look).

Got a picture? I did an image search of NATF YF-23 proposal and didn't get anything.

[Coota0]

It thought the myth was you couldn't loop a helicopter unless Roy Scheider was flying it.

They'll loop and roll, it's all a matter of altitude and airspeed (and an aviator that is willing to get his ass nailed to the wall if he gets caught...so you won't be getting any video of me doing it anytime soon)

[Beltane70]

They'll loop and roll, it's all a matter of altitude and airspeed (and an aviator that is willing to get his ass nailed to the wall if he gets caught...so you won't be getting any video of me doing it anytime soon)

It's also dependent on the type of rotor design the helicopter uses. Some designs allow for looping, while others don't.

[VT 1010]

If only Malcolm McDowell knew that...