Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted January 27, 2005 Author Posted January 27, 2005 Wait is it a sidestick? BTW guys. I know some of you still havbe some vintage 80s jet toys. Anyone have flying fighters, or the KBtoys KO flying fighters F-14s? Those all ROCKED. That and this one line of F-14s in tiger camo that I never had. I had some Force 1 including the AWESOME hornet mountain attack set, but that broke when I stepped on it. The SE Asia camo phantom was pretty cool as well. There was also a line of diecast MIG-31, EF2000(EAP since it had the weird zigzag BVR missle arrangement) and a blue angels F-18. Most of this was available in KB toys. and now? Now we have crappy airplane toys. Except the gijoe thunderwing. I mean come on, I hate those matchbox planes and crap that CANT move their wheels. Not the detailed WWii/vietnam ones, but skybusters. Yuck. And who can forget, RING RAIDERS!!!!! Those were AWESOME!! And they had mini balljoint STANDS!! So post discussion, comparisons and most of all PICS of any of these if you still have them~~~!!!! Also please post links to info on these toys!!(Shin regrets being really stupid during childhood, and realizes all these years that KBtoys kicked ass during the earl 90s)
Graham Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 And who can forget, RING RAIDERS!!!!! Those were AWESOME!! ) "Ring Raiders".....LOL! Sorry, ain't nobody gonna be raiding my ring Graham
Graham Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 I'm wondering will the A-10C finally have air-to-air targetting function on the HUD for the 30mm gun? Graham
Opus Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 *maniacal laughter* ah my baby is finally getting some of the recognition it deserves. It still isn't a NA/AW by any stretch of the imagination but she is looking better. I do have to say one thing I do not like about it at this point. The stick. Sorry but I do not like the F-16 stick, would have much prefered to see them transition it to the F-15 style control column instead of mounting an F-16 stick. It makes me uneasy, and I know a few hog drivers won't like it too much either. The new stick was chosen based on pilot input so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Graham Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Wait is it a sidestick? The third pic on this link that David posted, clearly shows that it is NOT a sidestick. Graham
Opus Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 There is a 2-seater A-10. It's the A-10B. I think there's only one. It was made to test the feasability of producing a trainer version.
Lynx7725 Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 There is a 2-seater A-10. It's the A-10B. I think there's only one. It was made to test the feasability of producing a trainer version. That 2-seater looks.. hump-backed. Cute in a way, but also something I'm sort of ashamed to show people. Man, from the pics David provided, an A-10 cockpit looks really cramped. The foward visibility looks rather limited (no personal experience, of course), it's like looking at a sheer wall of instruments. Any clear ideas what are the upgrades? The story doesn't really add much details.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted January 27, 2005 Author Posted January 27, 2005 I don't imagine it is that bad. The pilot is kind of high up, and plus the canopy angles downward at a sharp angle, giving good over nose visibility. 2 seaters rule, I dunnno I just love the look! From VF-1D tyo F-14. F-15E/K/I, F-16D/F, F/A-18F/D,Su-30MKI,MIG-29M2UB.... The new A-10 has 2 MFD's, and GPS capability.
Knight26 Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 The A-10B was never intended as a trainer, though it would have been used for one. It was used as a test bed to make Night Attack Adverse Weather (NA/AW) variant of the A-10. IT would have carried custom radar and flir pods and would have had a glass cockpit. It was determined by the A-10 that the standard FLIR pod, to be introduced a few years later, would make the NA/AW unneeded. However the A-10 never got the numbers of FLIR pods it would have required until right before Desert Storm, when they were all taken away. After DS they were slowly transitioned back into the A-10 fleet and now the A-10C will have them as standard.
Opus Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 The A-10B was never intended as a trainer, though it would have been used for one. It was used as a test bed to make Night Attack Adverse Weather (NA/AW) variant of the A-10. IT would have carried custom radar and flir pods and would have had a glass cockpit. It was determined by the A-10 that the standard FLIR pod, to be introduced a few years later, would make the NA/AW unneeded. However the A-10 never got the numbers of FLIR pods it would have required until right before Desert Storm, when they were all taken away. After DS they were slowly transitioned back into the A-10 fleet and now the A-10C will have them as standard. I've heard that too but all of the A-10 people I've talked to say it's just a trainer. All I really know about the 10C is that there are six new systems involved. I can find out what they are tommorrow.
Knight26 Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 The trainer concept was something tacked onto the A-10B after the Air-Force turned down the NA/AW concept. The air force still did not pick it up though, buncha morons.
Nied Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 (edited) From what I understand the N/AW A-10 wasn't going to be much better than a LANTIRN (or now LITENING) equiped A-10C. The terain folowing radar would've been nice (though it's less useful now that the Hog has moved up high with the rest of the Air Force). Other than the extra crew member I don't see what the A-10B has over the A-10C. Hey Knight26 is it true that they were going to ditch the cool sideways opening canopy on the prototype in favor of a more traditional upward hinged one? Edited January 27, 2005 by Nied
Mislovrit Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 (edited) Anyone have picture of the N/AW A-10? Edited January 27, 2005 by Mislovrit
Skull Leader Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 we might if one existed. So far as I know that 2-seater pic is the closest thing to actually be built. I could be wrong though.
Skull Leader Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Ooh, VFA-102 repainted their CAG *again*. What is this, scheme #4 in 2 years? At least they know how to make a nose-stripe look good on a Shornet. Interestingly---the tailcode has been moved back to the rudders... (VFA-102 was one of the first to have to move their tailcodes off the rudders)Best of all--the Diamondbacks have a diamond on the back! Haven't seen that since the very first F-4 deliveries. http://drastic.cside.com/fly/CRW_0025.jpg They've had Tomcats with a diamond on the back before too, haven't they? I seem to recall seeing one that had a red diamond up around the TACAN and UHF antennas... maybe I saw something wrong?
David Hingtgen Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 ::looks:: OK, VF-102's F-14's had itty-bitty ones. Shornet's are a bit bigger and more visible. Still, vastly inferior to the HUGE ones the F-4's had. Although honestly, considering the time period and its design, it was practically an "aim here!" marking for MiG's... Check it out: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/galle...f4/d4c-7697.htm
Nied Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Anyone have picture of the N/AW A-10? The two seater pictured on the last page is basically it. The only difference would be that the pods housing the main gear would be elongated so that they could house senors in the front (terrain following radar on one side FLIR/Laser turret on the other). As I was asking Knight26 it may have recieved a simlified canopy as well, (think less F-4 and more F-15B).
hellohikaru Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 As far as i know the only A-10 N/AW was built from the Y/A-10B. There weren't any single seaters. This photo shows the plane with its engines removed.
hellohikaru Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 This is quite a sad sight for many. I can't believe this. Even 15 year old F-14D had been scrapped despite not even half of its airframe life used. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story...1017&ran=138750
Knight26 Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Yes the production A-10B would have had a more traditional canopy. The A-10B is a single prototype it was made from one of the A-10A preproduction prototypes, as most early prototype aircraft are. Also the A-10B when it was the NA/AW demonstrator had a glass cockpit that was comprable to the new A-10C 'pit. The A-10 still operates at low altitude when in combat, that is the reality of its role, so the surface tracking radar would have been a major asset. Especially during Desert Storm when they had to fly below the smoke of the oil fires to engage their enemies, very few other aircraft could do that.
Opus Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Well, here's the official word on what makes an A-10C an A-10C. The modifications are: 1) Digital Stores Management System (DSMS Integration - 5x7 display, CICU, CB Panel Mod, CICU SW, SubSystem Impact SW - SADL) 2) DC Power Generator Circuit Breakers 3) 1760 Bus Integration (cabling, circuit breakers, SCU A, Pylon, 1760 connectors, CICU Impact) 4) Digital Data Link 5) Targeting Pod Integration 6) JDAM/WCMD Integration
hellohikaru Posted January 28, 2005 Posted January 28, 2005 Here is the A-10C. Externally looks very similar to the A-10A with its last upgrades.
hellohikaru Posted January 28, 2005 Posted January 28, 2005 I suppose this is the "new" pit. Could have done this 20 years ago.
Nied Posted January 28, 2005 Posted January 28, 2005 Yes the production A-10B would have had a more traditional canopy. The A-10B is a single prototype it was made from one of the A-10A preproduction prototypes, as most early prototype aircraft are. Also the A-10B when it was the NA/AW demonstrator had a glass cockpit that was comprable to the new A-10C 'pit. The A-10 still operates at low altitude when in combat, that is the reality of its role, so the surface tracking radar would have been a major asset. Especially during Desert Storm when they had to fly below the smoke of the oil fires to engage their enemies, very few other aircraft could do that. Ah but the terain following radar would mostly be used on the ingress and egress to combat, once in he thick of things it would be relying mostly on visual or in N/AW conditions the FLIR and NVGs. It's my understanding that is why most of the new generation of nav/attack pods (LITENING, ATFLIR, and Sniper XR) do not incorperate such a radar, while older systems like the dual pod LANTIRN does.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted January 31, 2005 Author Posted January 31, 2005 Either way that thing must be a huge comfort to hog pilots. LOOk!! MFD's FINALLY!! I love 2 seaters so I think the A-10B would be awesome, however it is awesome tha the C hog has what the B was intended to have aside from a WSO. BTW more debate fodder. F/A-18F vs MIG-29M and MIG-29K. close in and multirole capability. Battle of the high AOA! F/A-18F vs Typhoon. Another high AOA battle. Also I tend to think the typhoon may have a better multirole capability. Am I wrong?
Knight26 Posted January 31, 2005 Posted January 31, 2005 The only external difference I have been able to see so far on the A-10C is the GPS anntennae on the spine, about 6-8 feet back from the cockpit, only seen one picture. It looks like, well a nipple.
Nied Posted February 1, 2005 Posted February 1, 2005 Actually the GPS "nipple" has been a feature on the A-10A since the mid '90s. I still haven't been able to spot an external difference between the A and the C.
Knight26 Posted February 1, 2005 Posted February 1, 2005 Hmm, I must not have noticed that before, strange you would think I would have. Anyway found this great aviation video site today, take a look: http://www.aviationexplorer.com/movies.htm
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 1, 2005 Author Posted February 1, 2005 Taking it old school..... P-51 vs P-38. The top 2 USAAF planes of the war. Rate and compare!! F4U vs F6F hellcat vs P-51 vs P-38 vs Seafire vs Spitfire vs Warhawk P-40 vs Shinden Rate 'em! Compare! Which is the better? In dogfight and average fighter capabilities. Also, skyraider vs all thee above in every facet.
Lynx7725 Posted February 1, 2005 Posted February 1, 2005 Taking it old school.....P-51 vs P-38. The top 2 USAAF planes of the war. Rate and compare!! F4U vs F6F hellcat vs P-51 vs P-38 vs Seafire vs Spitfire vs Warhawk P-40 vs Shinden Rate 'em! Compare! Which is the better? In dogfight and average fighter capabilities. Also, skyraider vs all thee above in every facet. Don't really have stats for these aircraft, so have to go with my experiences in (various) sims, so the accuracies' about as good as you can guess... Don't really like the 'Stang.. it tends to not want to dogfight, rate of turn is rather slow from what I can remember. I'll prefer the '38 in this case, more firepower and more B-&-Z. 'Fact, I prefer a Typhoon/ Tempest over a 'Stang any day of the week, and a Spitfire, especially late war Spits, handles really nicely in turning fights (Experience from MS CFS3 IIRC). Not really fair to compare a P-40 with late-war plans isn't it? I'll take the Corsair anyday. It's a surprisingly sweet plane to fly (at least in the MS CFS2), and a better-than-expected dogfighter. Can't dog with a Zeke, of course, but a Zeke's a pretty touchy plane to fly. Like I said, take it with a grain of salt -- it's merely experience from flight sims. Do take into account I prefer to dogfight, so low level performance is what I tend to use... and that may have biased my view of the 'Stang.
VF-19 Posted February 1, 2005 Posted February 1, 2005 Taking it old school.....P-51 vs P-38. The top 2 USAAF planes of the war. Rate and compare!! F4U vs F6F hellcat vs P-51 vs P-38 vs Seafire vs Spitfire vs Warhawk P-40 vs Shinden Rate 'em! Compare! Which is the better? In dogfight and average fighter capabilities. Also, skyraider vs all thee above in every facet. Hmm... Judging from what I've seen in the IL-2 series of gamesm, the P-38 will have a hell of a time trying to turn at high speeds due to compression issues that keep the elevator from working properly. The P-51, if going too fast, will find that the wings will have... separated from the body. It's a pretty equal fight, as long as nobody does anything stupid. The Corsair would have a nasty low speed advantage over the 51 and 38, seeing as it's designed to land on a carrier. Just make the sod overshoot, and then shoot him up with the 6 50s, or the 4 20mms (F4U-C version) But! A Spitfire Mk VIII will out manuver and out turn just about everything.
F-ZeroOne Posted February 1, 2005 Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) Taking it old school.....P-51 vs P-38. The top 2 USAAF planes of the war. Rate and compare!! F4U vs F6F hellcat vs P-51 vs P-38 vs Seafire vs Spitfire vs Warhawk P-40 vs Shinden Rate 'em! Compare! Which is the better? In dogfight and average fighter capabilities. Also, skyraider vs all thee above in every facet. My money would be on the P-51 - the P-38 was a great plane, but it was never really a true "dogfighter", which is why it had problems in Europe. In the Pacific, it could use its speed and dive ability to jump Japanese planes - a P-38 that got into a true dogfight with a Zero was a P-38 in trouble. I don't think its really fair to compare the P-40 to the others as it was an older generation of aircraft. Seafire/Spitfire - probably depends on which mark, especially if going up against a P-51 (mind you, that would depend on the P-51 model as well - a late model Spitfire would probably eat a P-51A for breakfast... ). Its probably going to balance about evens, though it should always be borne in mind that not only did the Spitfire have a Merlin engine right from the start, it was also an older design than the Mustang - but thanks to continual development it was able to keep up, and even surpass the best of the rest - all the way throughout World War II. The Corsair would probably do well if it kept its speed and altitude up, but I don't know how well it would handle a turning fight against a Spitfire. As for the Shinden - you don't mean Shiden, do you? (the Kawanishi N1K1?) By most accounts that was a pretty formidable fighter, though again, its performance would probably seem a bit low compared to a very late model Griffon-engined Spit (one pilot describes such Spits as "beasts" ). The Shinden only made one or two flights, and going by its configuration and the the problems other nations had with pusher props, it might have made a good bomber interceptor but possibly a poor or average fighter. One thing many veterans will say is that any fighter could be dangerous in the right hands... Edited February 1, 2005 by F-ZeroOne
ewilen Posted February 1, 2005 Posted February 1, 2005 The Shinden never even got off the ground, so what's the point of trying to compare it? It does look nice, I'll grant you.
hellohikaru Posted February 1, 2005 Posted February 1, 2005 The P-51 is somewhat overrated IMO since its reputation has excedded its actual ability. I prefer the P-47D/M/N over it anytime since the Mustang is too fragile. And a P-47N easily has more range than the Mustang with drop tanks. The Jug would have made the better choice for a ground attacker in Korea too since the ground fire was intense and the Mustang's liquid cool engine didn't take damage very well. The Jug on the other hand was legendary for its toughness. The Zero(Early to mid war) could be the most capable planes in term of agility and turning performance but like most japanese fighters of those times there were very lightly built and fragile. Later model Zeroes became heavier as they evolved and lost some of their handling qualities. A P-40 could take on the Zero provided you not enter a turning fight with it relying on BnZ tactics. Of course in IL-2's PF the US side AI doesn't take advantage of this and your squadron will suffer heavy losses.
Memphis Egyptologist Posted February 1, 2005 Posted February 1, 2005 The P-51 is somewhat overrated IMO since its reputation has excedded its actual ability. I prefer the P-47D/M/N over it anytime since the Mustang is too fragile. And a P-47N easily has more range than the Mustang with drop tanks. The Jug would have made the better choice for a ground attacker in Korea too since the ground fire was intense and the Mustang's liquid cool engine didn't take damage very well. The Jug on the other hand was legendary for its toughness. Unfortunately, the USAF couldn't use the P-47 in Korea because not enough of them remained in storage or they had been sold to other countries.
Recommended Posts