Older planes had more style

You mean a current Hurricane or Spitfire pilot is flying a machine that is so safe and easy to fly that there is no possibility of it being damaged? Thats not really the case. Far from it in fact.

I agree Digby, if only that were so. Another great thing with the older planes was that they were alot easier to fly, you wouldn’t have to worry about recking a £1million piece of hardware !!!!

Can’t we swap all jets for proper A/C in museums and restore them to fly instead?

Originally posted by mike currill
Rememver that the Mosquito was never used as an interceptor though. More like a case of stooge around until something turns up then knockit down as in the night fighter role. This is exactly the scenarion envisioned for the F variant of the Tornado.

I never said it was an interceptor, though. The comment was that a ground attack aircraft can’t also be a good fighter.

The Mossie was a V1 intereceptor.

Typhoon then? Superb ground attack and low-level interceptor. Hurricane also, superb interceptor in its day, superb ground attack.

Point taken, careless posting.

I, of course, meant the F models, which possibly have a developing role in tobogganing if recent events in Leuchars are anything to go by. Unfortunately it seems that particular airframe is repairable and may fly again.

The GRs are OK as far as I can see, though hardly worldbeaters.

Moggy

Rememver that the Mosquito was never used as an interceptor though. More like a case of stooge around until something turns up then knockit down as in the night fighter role. This is exactly the scenarion envisioned for the F variant of the Tornado.

Re: Tornado

Originally posted by duxfordhawk
you can hardly expect a ground attack aircraft to be a fighter.

Why not? It’s been done before. The Mosquito in particular comes to mind. It was a superb ground attack and anti-shipping aircraft with cannons and rockets, great bomber and superb heavy fighter. Multi-role aircraft are possible if you have a great design, which the Tornado is not!

Tornado

The gr form is well proven as a top quaility ground attack aircraft dueing both Gulf conflicts it did very well,our men did a lot of the dirty risky jobs the yanks either could not or would not do,its upgrades have made it a very capable attack plane,As to its Fighter variant its a crock of crap but then again Tornado was not really designed as a fighter and always seemed more of a stop gap,we should not slag Tornados in general after all a bus is great at its job but you would not ask it to race a ferrari eh?,you can hardly expect a ground attack aircraft to be a fighter.

I’m with Moggy on this, Tornado, pah, best use for it is de icing the runway so the real aircraft can fly 😉

“Agreed with you all the way up to the point where you mentioned the Tornado

What a crock of poo to lumber our airforce with.

Moggy “

Choose your words carefully Moggy old chap (a new concept for ya I know,but hey…;) :D).By ‘Tornado’,I presume you mean that ‘thing’ that has an ‘F’ for fighter as part of it’s designation,which I would agree is not quite what it should be (to put it politely). Get Eurofighter into service ASAP!
The GR models on the other hand are extremely well liked and capable from what I’ve heard and I doubt there are many who fly or work on them who would hear a bad word said about them.

Re: Older planes had more style

Originally posted by HELLIER 004
Does anybody agree with me, but don’t you think that the earlier propeller models had more style and they were easy to tell apart.

Don’t get me wrong the new British Harriers and Tornadoes are still the best in the world

Agreed with you all the way up to the point where you mentioned the Tornado 🙁

What a crock of poo to lumber our airforce with.

Moggy

So did the pilots. They had Irvins and scarves in the RAF, baggy trousers and leather jackets in the Luftwaffe.

You’re right old planes do look good just like old cars they got the magic touch :p

Maybe over 50 years people will say the same thing about an f-18?
😉

Come on people, I want to hear your thoughts.