dark light

logical1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 130 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • logical1
    Participant

    Lots of replies here against the F-23. But I bet there is not even one from a combat pilot. Are there any combat pilots posting here that would rather dogfight rather than being higher faster and invisible to the enemy. If he or she has that advantage all they have to do is push the button on a missile, and the enemy is gone. An enemy that is gone is a good thing. The pilot gets to come home. THAT is what it is all about.

    in reply to: Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb #2136280
    logical1
    Participant

    The Vigilante’s design with the broad body, wing on top and side air intakes with the top over hang was indeed the grandfather of the later fighters. Altho it had just the one vertical tail member, look it up, NA’a first design had two, but the Navy reject it. With the original design the Vigilante looked exactly like a larger F-15.

    in reply to: Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb #2136839
    logical1
    Participant

    Also North American produce the Vigilante. Although it was a medium bomber, its design was the prototype of many fighters such as the F-14, F-15, and the MIG 29 and 31. It is apparent that the North American engineers were at the top of the game.

    logical1
    Participant

    Still what pilot would not like higher faster, and stealth. Being above and behind without the enemy knowing you are there is primary.

    The greatest fighter pilot ever Erich Hartman said most of his kills were made when the enemy probably never knew he was there! If the enemy is already shot down, all the other things people mention means nothing.

    in reply to: Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb #2138464
    logical1
    Participant

    The 40s too. They designed the P-51!!

    in reply to: Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb #2140202
    logical1
    Participant

    But none of those engines were super sonic.

    in reply to: Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb #2140209
    logical1
    Participant

    Not only did cancelling the B-70 set back large supersonic airliners, it set back engine development.

    The GE J-93 engines were in the near 30,000 pound class. If the B-70 had not been cancelled Pratt and others would have developed their own engines of that power. How much longer was it before engines that powerful became generally available?

    People can argue against it, but that plane on the absolute leading edge of technology absolutely would have advanced general aviation. Sadly it was lost because of dumb political reasons.

    in reply to: Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb #2140407
    logical1
    Participant

    The B-47 and the B-52 gave us the 707. Who knows what the B-70 would have given us. Sure there were smaller supersonic planes, but the B-70 would have been the template for large civil aircraft.

    in reply to: Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb #2140431
    logical1
    Participant

    It still remains that the leap forward that the B-70 would have generated in aviation was lost. Cancelling it set aviation back decades. Where are the supersonic transports we should have had 30 years ago. Military science and engineering has always led the way. That is why civil aviation got jets.

    in reply to: The Concorde legacy and its effect on all aviation #2140644
    logical1
    Participant

    That of course is the same environmental lobby that now claims we have global warming. The really logical thing here is there would never been that many B-70s built to cool the planet anyway.

    in reply to: Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb #2140893
    logical1
    Participant

    The fact still remains that there is virtually nothing the B-52 does that the B-70 couldnt do faster and better.

    Example————carry cruise missiles to a firing point. Getting those cruise missiles to that drop off point 4 time faster could save American lives or the lives of our allies.

    Also doing a little research the bomb carrying capacity, and the range is not that much different between the two aircraft. Remember because of the brilliant compression lift design that the B-70 had, its range was greatly extended.

    Lastly higher and faster is better than low an slow. Just ask any pilot. And————there is a 99% chance that sadly the decision to cancel that brilliant design was undoubtably a political one, which everyone knows is a stupid reason.

    in reply to: Angled vs straight flight deck aesthetics #2008719
    logical1
    Participant

    Pretty???????????? Do you realize how functional a carrier with a canted deck really is?

    in reply to: Why the love for the Super Crusader? (XF8U-3 Crusader III) #2132683
    logical1
    Participant

    A-7: 4 of the 6 wing pylons are wet, the inner and outer pair.
    F-8: 2 hard points on the fuselage with twin rails for 4 AAMs. Only 2 hard points on the wing afaik.
    XF8U: AFAIK only 3 fuselage pylons for Sparrows.

    But————–using common sense and logic, a fighter should be a fighter. It should NOT be encumbered and slowed down by pylons to carry bombs. If you want to bomb, use an attack bomber like the A-4 or a medium bomber.

    logical1
    Participant

    To me one of the most over hyped to begin with was the F-111. It was a mouse built to GSA specs that turned out to be a elephant, a white elephant. How ever it did turn out to be a pretty good medium bomber. It was a result of politicians getting involved in the picture. When the Navy said no way in hell, they ended up with the briliant F-14.

    in reply to: Why the love for the Super Crusader? (XF8U-3 Crusader III) #2133791
    logical1
    Participant

    There are a lot of people who love the XF8U-3 Crusader III in this forum
    even to the point they feel it should’ve been chosen over the F-4.

    my question is why?
    I think it could have a performance edge over the Phantom Jr in some areas.
    but the Phantom’s key point was its ability to function as a ground attacker. Especially long after its a2a abilities were supplanted by other fighters.

    the XF8U-3 Crusader III looks like it simply didn’t have the space for them on its narrow fueselage and wings.

    The III was MUCH faster, and a MUCH better dog fighter. A Figher is supposed to be a fighter. The ignorance of trying to make one plane all things to all people reached its zenith when the F-111 was developed. It was a huge aircraft that the pilot couldnt see behind. It was so big and so heavy it made a fairly good medium bomber.

    NASA pilots that few one of the 5 Crusader IIIs on the east coast would attack and dog fight F4s from Pax River, and wax their asses every time. The Navy got pissed and demanded the the NASA pilots quit, since it was such an embarrassment. Yes the F4 was a good aircraft, but in the fighter roll the Crusader III could have them for lunch any time they wanted to. The winner almost always goes to the pilot that flies higher, faster, and can out turn his opponent.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 130 total)