dark light

logical1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 130 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: X-47B first shot off carrier #2001167
    logical1
    Participant

    Hopefully the Navy will accelerate drones flying off carriers. That means that we wont need permission to base drones in other countries. Carriers can just stand out in international waters and fly our drones anywhere we want to. Of course the big thing is we wont have to pay some crooked dictator millions to use his airfields.

    in reply to: Great Navy fighter #2001740
    logical1
    Participant

    My point remains, and I think a lot of fighter pilots would agree that loading a true fighter up like a garbage truck with bombs is just wrong.

    It is my understanding that Vought resisted turning the F8 into a bomber untill the very end. Like always ignorant bean counters, and politicians that know nothing screw up things. Look at the fact that desk bound fools took guns off planes like the F4. How many F4s were shot down because they were not flown clean? How many more MIGS could they have shot down if they would have had a gun?

    The biggest fool of all was MacNamara!!! He championed the F111. A great example of a plane that was to be all things to all people. It was a 50,000 turkey as a fighter. Later it did work out as a medium bomber.

    in reply to: Great Navy fighter #2002042
    logical1
    Participant

    bager

    The fact that the F4 could be loaded up like garbage truck was not necessarily a good thing. The idea of making a figher into a all things for all people is a really bad idea. Im sure most Navy figher pilots would agree. The F8U was looked upon as a “real” fighter because it was NOT loaded down with bomb racks all the way across the bottom of the wing. And of course Crusaders had guns too. Later in Nam after pilots screamed that they could have made a kill if they had guns, they hung on a gun pod. So———–then they had a gun but another piece of crap hanging out in the wind messing with performance.

    Fighters should be fighters, and bombers should be bombers!!!!

    in reply to: Great Navy fighter #2002059
    logical1
    Participant

    Scooter

    Yes the F8U-3 was a fantastic plane the Navy never bought. They bought the Phantom instead. Ames at Moffett had one of the 3s that flew once in a while. It was like a 150% 2.

    The 3 could fly rings around the Phantom. Just look up the specs on the Crusader 3. It had a rate of climb better than the F4 and a service ceiling higher too. You can find stories about 3s jumping Pax river Phantoms, and waxing them every time. Pax river finally had to insist that the guys flying reseach 3s cut it out. It made the Navy decision to buy the Phantoms look bad.

    The reason that the Navy bought the Phantom over the Crusader 3 was it had a radar intercept back seater.

    in reply to: The father of all forth gen aircraft #2002369
    logical1
    Participant

    The tunnel was used for extra fuel. The tunnel was designed to be used for nuclear weapons, but the Air Force and rockets took over the delivery of nuclear weapons. Most ended up as really fast recon planes with a really long range. If nothing else it showed the rest of the plane manuf how to build a really fast efficient plane.

    BTW I saw the first Vigilante at an airshow at Moffett Field, and thot it was one of the most beautiful airplanes I had ever seen. And it still is.

    in reply to: Great Navy fighter #2002401
    logical1
    Participant

    Another thing I remember from Moffett about the F8 is their hot landing speed. Moffett had twin runways, and the fighters almost alway use 32L, while our Connies used 32R. One day we were shooting no flap landings in our Connie. An F8 turned inside of us to land on 32L. As we came over the end of the runway, our Connie was actually slowly out running the F8. The Connies no flap landing speed was actually faster than a normal configuration landing of the F8!!

    in reply to: Great Navy fighter #2002406
    logical1
    Participant

    Even comming in for a landing the Crusader with its wing cranked up looked like some bird of prey comming in to roost.

    I guess the best thing about the F8 was the fact it was a fighter. They never dirtied it up all that much with bombs etc trying to make it a do all end all plane. The ones I saw at Moffett only had a couple of sidewinders on the side of the fuselage. That why Navy pilots loved the Crusader in Nam.

    in reply to: Bell reveals new tilt rotor #2242203
    logical1
    Participant

    Actually looks like a pretty sharp design to me. It should get some extra speed with thrust from the outboard engines pointed straight back.

    in reply to: Blue Angels under threat #2372126
    logical1
    Participant

    The loons that hate the military probably will make a run at the Blues!!!!

    in reply to: Iran to Unveil New Fighter Tomorrow – Qaher 313 ??? #2247106
    logical1
    Participant

    I wonder if it will have one hump or two????:)

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2249029
    logical1
    Participant

    From what I read on many aircraft forums, the plane seems to have a large number of problems that the engineers over looked. They seem to be in computer language delivering a beta test model and letting the military discover the problems.

    in reply to: Favorite aircraft #2260448
    logical1
    Participant

    Besides the f-104 and the F8U-2N, when it comes to later aircraft, the “D” model F14 comes to mind. It was a super offensive fighter with excellent range.

    At an air show in Omaha several years ago a D model Tomcat stole the whole show from the AF. With its GE engines whining and and that special moan when it made about a 80 degree baking 360 EVERYONE was amazed. It followed that by comming down the runway with everthing hanging out at a high angle of attack just above stall. It went to full burner sucked everything up and went total vertical to over 10,000 feet. Amazing power!!!

    in reply to: Fuselage layout pros and cons #2261159
    logical1
    Participant

    I am also reminded of the F-100 with its mid wing, and the F8U with its high wing. They both weighed the same, and had the same J-57. Yet the F8U was over 200 mph faster.

    in reply to: Fuselage layout pros and cons #2261161
    logical1
    Participant

    The high wing with the flat area was proven to be a life saver. When an Israelie F-15 had one whole wing torn off the pilot was still able to bring the plane in for a landing.

    in reply to: Most beautiful aircraft #2263318
    logical1
    Participant

    I would like to add that I fully agree with the person that said the f-23 is a great looking plane, much better looking than the F-22.

    If you can believe what they said about the F-23, it was faster, and had less radar signature than the F-22. Probably politics got in the way, since the F-23 appears to be a better plane. It probably falls in the same catagory of Washington thinking that took guns off our fighter planes.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 130 total)