hellohikaru Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 I gotta admit the Super Crusader does have the look of a anime series plane from the 70s like Space Battleship Yamato. Sharp angles and long ventral fins among other features. btw pictures were found in Vought website. http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/f8u-3.html A bit small though.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 28, 2004 Author Posted October 28, 2004 Aw man. That site does not have many pics on this either. Anyone know what happened to this? LIke was it scrapped and sent to the boneyard or melted into reusable metals for other planes? Such a sad thing to happen. A truly beautiful plane. I wonder how well it could have done in vietnam.
Opus Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Aw man. That site does not have many pics on this either. Anyone know what happened to this? LIke was it scrapped and sent to the boneyard or melted into reusable metals for other planes? Such a sad thing to happen. A truly beautiful plane. I wonder how well it could have done in vietnam. I don't think it would have fared any better in Nam than the Phantom. No guns, they scapped the 4 20mm cannons and the same craptasic missiles that couldn't hit the braod side of a barn from the inside. Now if I may kick it old school for a while, how do you think the F4U would do against the P-51D? If it's been discussed already please forgive me but I didn't feel like rootong through 30 pages to see.
David Hingtgen Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 P-51 may have speed and fame, but the original Corsair is the most truly kick-ass plane of all time. I vote F4U.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 28, 2004 Author Posted October 28, 2004 I think aside from teh cutlass, all of vought's planes have hauled ass. I mean their super crusader falls into the same category as the F-20, YF-23, F-14D/ST21,F-15S/TMD and other planes which never saw the light of day as mass produced fighters.
Lynx7725 Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 P-51 may have speed and fame, but the original Corsair is the most truly kick-ass plane of all time. I vote F4U. The 'Tang is a nice little plane, but nothing beats Ms. Inverted Gull Wings in my books. Loved the look, loved the flight characteristics (in sims). Come to think of it, I never really thought very highly of the Mustang.. it's an okay plane I guess, but the Pacific Theater seems to breed muscular and tough planes more so than the European Theater.
Opus Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 P-51 may have speed and fame, but the original Corsair is the most truly kick-ass plane of all time. I vote F4U. The 'Tang is a nice little plane, but nothing beats Ms. Inverted Gull Wings in my books. Loved the look, loved the flight characteristics (in sims). Come to think of it, I never really thought very highly of the Mustang.. it's an okay plane I guess, but the Pacific Theater seems to breed muscular and tough planes more so than the European Theater. You think so? The only plane more indestructable than the P-47 was the IL2 Sturmovik. Both ETO planes. I can't decide who'd win. The Mustang is fast and has greater range but the corsair is much sturdier. I think it may boil down pilot skill. If were going on cool factor alone then the Corsair wins hands down or until a P-38 shows up to prove why it was the most sucessful fighter of the war.
Lynx7725 Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 You think so? The only plane more indestructable than the P-47 was the IL2 Sturmovik. Both ETO planes. I meant in general.. US Pacific planes are notorious for being flying tanks. And Japanese planes are notorious for being flying fuel tanks.. I guess it's a difference in philosophy, but to be honest I never really enjoyed European WWII flight sims. The performance between line fighters are so similar that it's really pointless to fly.. it becomes a matter of endurance, who can last longer than the other.. assuming equal pilot skills, of course. Whereas in the Pacific the difference in styles makes it really challenging to get the other side to fight on your terms. Total newbies have a fighting chance against aces if they can sucker the aces into a fight that is counter to the plane's design philosophy.
hellohikaru Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 @Shin The Filipino(spl?) Gators were actually put up for sell after years of neglect at Basa AFB. Ever though of buying one ? As the fate of the Supgats here is an extract from an article written by Joe Baugher "The two Langley-based XF8U-3s were scrapped in early 1960. The Ames/Edwards plane appears also to have been scrapped. The spares airframe seems to have ended its life in fire-fighting drills. Consequently, I do not believe any of the XF8U-3s survive today. Details anyone? " btw the definitive version of the F8U-3 was to have included the 4 guns and an even bigger nose for a larger antenaa.
hellohikaru Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 The Douglas Skylancer is said to have performance supposedly superior to the F-8 Crusader had J79 been installed. Lost because Douglas already had a large pie of the Navy carrier fleet. How well would it have perform in combat compared with the Crusader series ?
hellohikaru Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 I believe the P-47 Jug would have made a better ground attack plane in Korea than the Mustang no matter how much better the latter is able to evade enemy fire. The merlin engine would have not taken damage very well and the ground fire was furious and many planes were shot down. The radial of the P-47 and F4U are much more suitable for the CAS role. Same with the Skyraider.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 28, 2004 Author Posted October 28, 2004 Whoa.....I wouldnt mind owning an F-8UP!!!!! Sometimes I wish I could fly for my homeland and rid it of corruption and be a mercenary like Shin in Area 88. Hmmm. Many pilots say the phantom was "trucky" in comparison to the super crrusader..knowing this I guess it implies that the super crusader was a good turner and with an already fast engine, and a proposed ROCKET powered engine I have no doubt this thing could annhilate the phantom in the vertical and turning planes. Phantom's advantage over the F-8 was speed but the F-8UIII achieved a higher rate of speed during tests than the phantom and hell the rocket would boosted that sucker off the ground and in the air in no time. Kind of sucks you know? Every other naval fighter gets screwed over. CRusader was nice, super wa awesome, phantom picked over those, and wasnt made to dogfight which was what vietnam was about since sparrows never workwed and pilots thought dogfighting was over. Tomcat was awesome, power and energy and long range and a BIG plane suitable for multirole, super tomcat 21 gets canned. Super hornet....well you know my reasons. In theory I tend to think every other naval fighter in succession gets screwed over one way or another. Which leads credence in the notion that I think the fighter that replaces the hornet will have the long range loiter and attack capability of the tomcat, better manueverability and less drag than the hornet,faster startup time, supercruising and thrust vectoring. Hey history DOES repeat itself!!
Mislovrit Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Shin as long the legacy and the disciples of McNamara and Kissinger remains inor near power each new Navy [and to a lesser extent the USAF] fighter will be worse than it's precedessor. Only when the enough Navy brass and pilots decides to fall on their own swords rather then accept the new fighter would anything improve.
Seven Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 I always loved the X planes. Especially the X-31 thrust vector testbed, that thing has crazy manueverability! The F16XL is sweet looking as well, and take a look at the X-29! http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Fle...7-44165-149.jpg http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Fle...C94-42513-3.jpg http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-3...C92-04233-9.jpg
David Hingtgen Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 No need for pics of the X-29, I've seen the real thing. TINY little fighter in person. Which must mean the F-5 is equally tiny.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 29, 2004 Author Posted October 29, 2004 It is VERY tiny. I've seen an F-5F UPCLOSE and a super hornet, heck a F-16A and a F/A-18C are so much bigger. And the JSF? Don't be fooled, that sucker is BIG. Looks almost fat upclose. It might be a single engine fighter but it is big for it's size. Not too bad actually, up close. On of the UAV's on display @OCeana during the air show had a wing span clos to that of the F-5!! or bigger!
Skull Leader Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 the JSF is just different enough from the F-22 to make it fugly IMO.... I really hope we don't start to see these crowding carrier decks in the next 10-15 years......
hellohikaru Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 X-29...it doesn't look like it can carry much weapons or fuel. An operational F-29A would have needed some scaling up. Too bad Namco in Ac5 didn't try to be a bit adventurous with their version. Test aircraft color scheme + 4 Sidewinders. A slightly larger version would have allowed Slammer carriage.
hellohikaru Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 OT: Guys...WoV is out. Check the screenies http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bb...;f=121;t=000526
Knight26 Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 The F-5/T-38/X-29 family are all small craft, designed for short range, fighter in a shoe box role. Also can anyone tell me why WOV shows F-5s on the deck of the Nimitz, the F-5 is not a carrier capable aircraft. Oh and the first production F/A-22A roled off the line this week and was delivered to the Air Force.
hellohikaru Posted October 29, 2004 Posted October 29, 2004 @knight26 Digital Overload is apparently just experimenting with the 3rd party F-5 on a 3rd party Nimitz....to show that SFp1 mods are compatible with WoV.
David Hingtgen Posted October 30, 2004 Posted October 30, 2004 Jolly Rogers CO plane destroyed: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/foru...ST&f=15&t=35804
Nied Posted November 2, 2004 Posted November 2, 2004 Dang the Jolly Rogers can't catch any luck lately. First Boeing sends them planes with watered down paint schemes, then their CO gets canned, now this.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 17, 2004 Author Posted November 17, 2004 OK guys time to revive!!! 1-F-14D vs F-15C close in knifefight, any altitude, limit to vulcan and sidewinder L. I don't remember if we ever even discussed this...I know we did supercat vs superbug....but not eagle vs cat.... 2-F-4F Luftwaffe AMRAAM(any others?) upgrade vs F-4 2000 Kurnass. Operational capability and knife fight... 3-F-86E vs F-J3 Fury or (Naval sabre). Knife fight and multirole. WAs the fury even a good dogfighter like it's AF brother? 4-F-100 vs F-105 close in knifefight. 5-F-101B vs F-104 knife.
Coota0 Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 Another thread made me wonder this. I've seen F-14A's F-14B's and F-14D's, but is there an F-14C and what is it?
F-ZeroOne Posted November 20, 2004 Posted November 20, 2004 Here you go: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14b.htm I also found reference to a World War II "XF-14C" made by Curtis, but details on that seem to be a bit scarce.
hellohikaru Posted November 21, 2004 Posted November 21, 2004 Does a Black Viggen look cool I think the color scheme is good for the next AC5 ace.
Noyhauser Posted November 21, 2004 Posted November 21, 2004 I would LOVE to see the Sweedish hangers built into the sides of mountains to protect them. I thought it was an ingeneous idea to deal with a first strike threat.
ewilen Posted November 21, 2004 Posted November 21, 2004 now that is one sexy beast Indeed. About the Curtis XF-14C, I have: On the same day, June 30, 1941, the Navy ordered the Hellcat prototypes, it ordered two prototypes each of the Curtiss XF-14c and the Grumman XF7F-1. First Curtiss Navy fighter since 1935, the XF-14C-1 was to be powered by a 2200 hp Lycoming H-2470-4, and the second prototype was redesigned to take a 2300 hp Wright R-3350-16 Cyclone. When the inline Lycoming proved unsatisfactory, the XF14C-1 was cancelled in December 1943, but the second prototype was accepted as the XF14C-2 in July 1944. Co-axial contrarotating propellers were provided for the big Cyclone, along with an intake under the cowl for the turbo-supercharger. The wheels folded inwards into the roots of the low wing, which could fold upward for stowage. Four 20-mm. guns protruded from the wing leading edge.Specs:Wright XR-3350-16, 2300 hp takeoff, 2250 hp at 32,000'Dimensions: Span 46', Lg. 37' 9", Ht. 17', Wing Area 375 sq. ft. Weight: Empty 10,582 lb., Gross 13,405 lb., Max. 14,582 lb. Fuel 230-380 gal. Performance: Speed--top 424 mph at 32,000', 317 mph at s. l., Cruising 172 mph. Service Ceiling 39,500', Climb 2700'/1 min. Range 950 miles normal, 1355 miles max. There's a picture of this beast showing a profile that's vaguely P-40ish with the bizarre (for a fighter) coaxial propellers, that is, two three-blade propellers one behind the other. (Source American Combat Planes, by Ray Wagner, pp. 402-403.)
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 21, 2004 Author Posted November 21, 2004 Thedre's actually mountain hangars? Like the ones in the aero fighters arcade game? That is so cool!!! That black viggen is very sexy indeed. I think the swedes get overlooked a lot. But they have very nice designs. Almost all deltas but not total look alikes like the Mirage family. Whatever the F-14C was to become eventually became the F-14D. Though I am skeptical on this, last night while watching modern marvels:F-14 on history channel last night, they say the IRST on the F-14D has a range of 300 miles while the TCS could see targets 40 miles away. Or did they say 400? I think 40. They said something about TARPS range but I was skeptical on that too. A lot of the pilots and grumman officials they talked to that flew it all said that one way or another it will probably continue to fly as the years progress even if the navy does plan to retire them in 2007. They talked about how 10 years ago and 10 years before that, that many thought the tomcat would not be in service during the 90s or even to start the new century, but it did both. I think if posible the Navy might keep some around for high speed FAC/CAS, or perhaps modding it for SEAD as a interim prowler replacement before the growler goes into service. Dennis Romano, one of the old test pilots and a grumman official said the airframes in service now(assuming B/D) still have 20 years left in their airframe. I know the tomcat has carried Zunis and has done fast FAC/CAS during the recent afghani and iraqi wars, and that it performed admirably with LGB's/LANTIRN even with the super hornet in the same wars, and for now it is still the only high speed self escort/strike/recon plane the navy has, so I see a few sticking around for a while after the proposed "retirement" date.
hellohikaru Posted November 21, 2004 Posted November 21, 2004 Check this thread out about Mountain Hangars. A good read. http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthrea...&threadid=21093
David Hingtgen Posted November 21, 2004 Posted November 21, 2004 IRST etc ranges are always "ideal" not "real world". 300 miles? Yeah, it can probably detect the IR signature of a nuclear blast against the absolute-zero background of space at that range. But not jet exhaust against the Arabian deserts... TCS range--depends on how big the plane is. I've heard they can tell a 747 at 70 miles, but it's only good for fighters for 10-20 miles. PS---while we're talking about F-14's, it seems VF-101 might get 1 more year to do airshow demos.
Recommended Posts