If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jalopnik)   Five planes that had it in for their pilots. Come for the flying nuclear reactor, stay for the Thunderscreech   (jalopnik.com) divider line 113
    More: Scary, Thunderscreech, nuclear reactors, strategic bombers  
•       •       •

9200 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Jun 2013 at 6:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-15 02:53:57 PM  
One of the thunderscreeches was just abandoned at Meadows field airport by the Navy because nobody wanted to fly it back to Edwards. the airpor asked them to take it back or pa storage. They ignored requests so  Meadows field had it mounted on a pylon out front with an electric motor slowly spinnng its prop for 15 or 20 years as a decoration  until the gummint seized it back to put in some museum.


cdn-www.airliners.net
 
2013-06-15 02:58:09 PM  
farm9.staticflickr.com

It got less shiny over time
 
2013-06-15 04:39:04 PM  
One A-4 pilot crashed 2 in flight training and another 2 on active duty and had a fifth one shot from under him in Vietnam.  The only reason he did not wash out after crashing 2 in flight school was the fact that his father and grandfather each were 4 star admirals.
The planestatic.ddmcdn.com
The pilotfoolsandfanatics.com
 
2013-06-15 05:07:51 PM  

teto85: One A-4 pilot crashed 2 in flight training and another 2 on active duty and had a fifth one shot from under him in Vietnam.  The only reason he did not wash out after crashing 2 in flight school was the fact that his father and grandfather each were 4 star admirals.
The plane[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x208]
The pilot[foolsandfanatics.com image 539x340]


how DARE YOU suggest that AMERICAN HERO, that WOUNDED WARRIOR and BRAVE P.O.W. career was any thing LESS THAN HONORABLE!?

/amahdoinright?
 
2013-06-15 05:26:52 PM  
This list useless without the Boeing "Screamliner."

/Amarite?
 
2013-06-15 05:30:12 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Catch a falling Starfighter
put it in the pocket of your jeans
you can use it as a cigarette lighter
or as an opener for a can of beans
 
2013-06-15 05:45:53 PM  
Good Idea: Nuclear power provides clean and virtually limitless energy, with the latter attribute proving especially important for strategic bombers. Back in the Cold War, Strategic Air Command planes of the United States Air Force would fly in circles around the Arctic, waiting for their doomsday orders to bomb the Soviet Union. With a nuclear reactor on board, they could potentially stay on station for weeks or even months.

I think you lost the environmentalists with that statement

Science doesnt matter to a lot of people.

OMG THE NUCLEAR BOOGYMAN fear drives people insane
 
2013-06-15 06:19:53 PM  
I commend the article's creators for using a picture of an actual Zero instead of one of the many copies.
 
2013-06-15 06:20:52 PM  
TFA: Just a few hits from the guns in a Hellcat would make the Zero explode

The Hellcat went into action almost two years after Pearl Harbor.

The Zero was one of the best combat planes in history. For its day. Which did not last long.

But the design was great in its day.
 
2013-06-15 06:23:26 PM  
The B-36 looks like a WWII bomber.

Until you see it next to a B-29.

aerospacehistorian.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-15 06:24:16 PM  
The inclusion of the Zero on this list seems more than a tad unfair.  It was an outstanding fighter in its day, but back then aviation tech was moving very rapidly.  The Japanese should have retired it far sooner.
 
2013-06-15 06:25:46 PM  
img.gawkerassets.com

I had a toy version of this one when I was a kid.
 
2013-06-15 06:30:43 PM  

cman: Science doesnt matter to a lot of people.

OMG THE NUCLEAR BOOGYMAN fear drives people insane


You're saying opposition to nuclear powered airplanes is insanity.

Please tell us more about nuclear-powered airplanes. That sounds interesting.
 
2013-06-15 06:42:22 PM  

jaytkay: The B-36 looks like a WWII bomber.

Until you see it next to a B-29.


Well, technically she kinda was. It was designed to be able to bomb Germany from bases in the US in the event that Britain was conquered. It just took longer than the war to fully develope.
 
2013-06-15 06:45:43 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: The inclusion of the Zero on this list seems more than a tad unfair.  It was an outstanding fighter in its day, but back then aviation tech was moving very rapidly.  The Japanese should have retired it far sooner.


Top level meddling was responsible for the Zero staying active for so long.  That and a lack of available resources.

The aerodynamics on Japanese planes were superb, they were all just under-powered and under-armored in the war.  With proper fuel for the engine it was originally equipped with, KI-84 could keep up with any allied plane.  Even with the subpar fuel available, it could out dogfight any of them.  It's probably a good thing it arrived too late to affect the war much.
 
2013-06-15 06:50:18 PM  
...Let us take a look at this pilots' nightmare - the Heinkel He162:

upload.wikimedia.org

Made mostly from wood (and accordingly GLUED) together, it was intended to be flown by teenagers with approximately 8-10 hours in the cockpit.  It did manage to kill its first test pilot when the glue failed, It had an endurance time of less than 30 minutes at cruise speed, far less if the pilot wanted to, you know, go fast.  One squadron actually got the damned things, and knocked down ONE British aircraft in the six weeks it was in service.  At least 13 of the He162s were lost in that six weeks - two of which fell to enemy aircraft.  The other 11 went down due to engine failures (MTBF for its engine was somewhere around four hours under ideal conditions, much less as the Luftwaffe disintegrated) or structural failures.  One more would go down after the war, taking its RAF test pilot with it due to a - wait for it - structural failure.

Opposing Viewpoint:  Eric Brown, one of the greatest British test pilots, swore the plane was never as bad as its reputation, but you had to be a highly skilled pilot to do it.
 
2013-06-15 06:55:39 PM  
I flew the X-29 forward-swept wing simulator when I was in HS.  They set me up on the standard landing approach pattern.

I went from 3000 feet to -30 feet in about 6 seconds...
 
2013-06-15 07:05:01 PM  

jaytkay: TFA: Just a few hits from the guns in a Hellcat would make the Zero explode

The Hellcat went into action almost two years after Pearl Harbor.

The Zero was one of the best combat planes in history. For its day. Which did not last long.

But the design was great in its day.


Zafler: Fish in a Barrel: The inclusion of the Zero on this list seems more than a tad unfair.  It was an outstanding fighter in its day, but back then aviation tech was moving very rapidly.  The Japanese should have retired it far sooner.

Top level meddling was responsible for the Zero staying active for so long.  That and a lack of available resources.

The aerodynamics on Japanese planes were superb, they were all just under-powered and under-armored in the war.  With proper fuel for the engine it was originally equipped with, KI-84 could keep up with any allied plane.  Even with the subpar fuel available, it could out dogfight any of them.  It's probably a good thing it arrived too late to affect the war much.


Two good posts.  The Zero was a more than adequate fighter for it's day.  A little more horsepower, self sealing tanks, and more than 60 rounds per cannon would have made life a great deal more difficult for the Navy's Wildcats.

The Hellcat and Corsair aren't fair comparisons.  They were much later designs.

AtlanticCoast63: Opposing Viewpoint: Eric Brown, one of the greatest British test pilots, swore the plane was never as bad as its reputation, but you had to be a highly skilled pilot to do it.


I've always liked the 162.  If they'd gone into service a year or even six months eariler, it and the 262 would have made for a trememdous high tech/low tech interceptor mix.
 
2013-06-15 07:09:11 PM  

FrancoFile: I flew the X-29 forward-swept wing simulator when I was in HS.  They set me up on the standard landing approach pattern.

I went from 3000 feet to -30 feet in about 6 seconds...


It's a plane, not a shovel, dude.
 
2013-06-15 07:12:12 PM  
So it doesn't quite fit the article, but I always thought this one was an accident waiting to happen.

It's a Dash 7. the stuff hanging from it is part of a ground penetraing radar. When I worked at MSP, I saw it come in to clear customs. They said they were heading down to the southwest to do a survey for water.


cdn-www.airliners.net
 
2013-06-15 07:13:58 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: FrancoFile: I flew the X-29 forward-swept wing simulator when I was in HS.  They set me up on the standard landing approach pattern.

I went from 3000 feet to -30 feet in about 6 seconds...

It's a plane, not a shovel, dude.


Tell that to the stick.  Throttle back a touch, nose just under the artificial horizon, BAM!!!
 
2013-06-15 07:16:06 PM  

Mr_Juche: It's a Dash 7. the stuff hanging from it is part of a ground penetraing radar.


Rotating props. Loose cables hanging in front of those props.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
2013-06-15 07:17:13 PM  

JustGetItRight: I've always liked the 162.  If they'd gone into service a year or even six months eariler, it and the 262 would have made for a trememdous high tech/low tech interceptor mix.


Another example of top level meddling farking everything up.  Hitler wanted to make it a ground attack aircraft (I think that's what it was), and tried to push them to do so, delaying deployment significantly.
 
2013-06-15 07:17:21 PM  
There's always the ME-163.  A glider fighter/interceptor boosted to operating altitude by a rocket motor fueled with hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide.  The fuels were so reactive that the smallest leak would cause the plane to explode, and so corrosive that the pilots (and anyone else who got near the plane) had to wear protective gear.
 
2013-06-15 07:35:21 PM  
When we gave the Germans the F-104 their joke was that the best way to obtain your very own F-104 was to buy a parcel near the runway and wait.
 
2013-06-15 07:37:25 PM  

Therion: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x192]

Catch a falling Starfighter
put it in the pocket of your jeans
you can use it as a cigarette lighter
or as an opener for a can of beans


He hee.  I hadn't heard that one.
 
2013-06-15 07:38:53 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: The inclusion of the Zero on this list seems more than a tad unfair.  It was an outstanding fighter in its day, but back then aviation tech was moving very rapidly.  The Japanese should have retired it far sooner.


Agreed, especially considering the F-104.  But to be fair most of the F-104's problems were related to going really really fast or going really really slow.
 
2013-06-15 07:44:19 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Therion: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x192]

Catch a falling Starfighter
put it in the pocket of your jeans
you can use it as a cigarette lighter
or as an opener for a can of beans

He hee.  I hadn't heard that one.


http://youtu.be/Jd0CbIwRd1Q

Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters (Hawkwind)

(sorry, phone linky)
 
2013-06-15 07:45:41 PM  

Therion: Catch a falling Starfighter


Most boring MST3K episode ever.

As for planes trying to kill pilots I always think of this one:
upload.wikimedia.org
Rocket propelled and it ejected it's landing gear upon takeoff.
 
2013-06-15 08:16:00 PM  

Cerebral Knievel: how DARE YOU suggest that AMERICAN HERO, that WOUNDED WARRIOR and BRAVE P.O.W. career was any thing LESS THAN HONORABLE!?


He can still be honorable.  He didn't crash on purpose, he crashed because he wasn't a very good pilot.
 
2013-06-15 08:18:22 PM  

jaytkay: cman: Science doesnt matter to a lot of people.

OMG THE NUCLEAR BOOGYMAN fear drives people insane

You're saying opposition to nuclear powered airplanes is insanity.

Please tell us more about nuclear-powered airplanes. That sounds interesting.


The "other thing" that John F. Kennedy was talking about in the "We will go to the moon..." speech was the Rover nuclear-power rocket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rover

A video of the Rover nuclear rocket engine testing  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmxPRCyR-Co
 
2013-06-15 08:23:41 PM  
Convair X-6
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
The NB-36H Crusader, flying nuclear reactor testbed. The reactor was eventually supposed to power the engines, but that never happened.

The Soviets had a similar project of their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-119
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-15 08:25:01 PM  

jaytkay: cman: Science doesnt matter to a lot of people.

OMG THE NUCLEAR BOOGYMAN fear drives people insane

You're saying opposition to nuclear powered airplanes is insanity.

Please tell us more about nuclear-powered airplanes. That sounds interesting.


My apologies, I should have been more specific.

I was speaking about the authors statement that nuclear power is a clean and safe energy, hence losing environmentalists.
 
2013-06-15 08:44:25 PM  

cman: jaytkay: cman: Science doesnt matter to a lot of people.

OMG THE NUCLEAR BOOGYMAN fear drives people insane

You're saying opposition to nuclear powered airplanes is insanity.

Please tell us more about nuclear-powered airplanes. That sounds interesting.

My apologies, I should have been more specific.

I was speaking about the authors statement that nuclear power is a clean and safe energy, hence losing environmentalists.


Roger, got it thank you.

As a far-left environmentalist, I concur - nuclear power is a good idea. Coal and oil are more harmful.
 
2013-06-15 08:46:50 PM  
So, about the nuclear bomber:

You can have a plane that has a normally-fueled engine, that has to land on a pretty regular basis

OR

You can have a nuclear-fueled bomber that can fly for months.  BUT it needs a small squadron of planes following it, all burning fuel.  Where are you saving anything?  You are going to either have to land the nuclear one with its tender planes when they run out of fuel, or you will have to keep sending more planes out to replace them.  Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to build a couple more conventional bombers and put them in a rota.  Sounds like LeMay's brand of farktard stupidity at work.

Plus, can you imagine being the poor crew stuck aboard this farker?  10-1 says it would have been up for less than three weeks before one of the pilots just straight-out power-dived the sucker, while the rest of the crew cheered him on.
 
2013-06-15 08:54:09 PM  
Uhh, the Gee-Bee DID kill everyone who flew it (except one.)
 
2013-06-15 09:09:50 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: There's always the ME-163.  A glider fighter/interceptor boosted to operating altitude by a rocket motor fueled with hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide.  The fuels were so reactive that the smallest leak would cause the plane to explode, and so corrosive that the pilots (and anyone else who got near the plane) had to wear protective gear.


That's the one I thought of. When I was about 8, I saw one in a museum, and my dad explained how it worked. I loudly said "those silly Germans!" and he told me not to talk like that and tried not to laugh.


But yeah, hypergolic fuels and a fuel system prone to cracking. Not a great combo.


Mr_Juche: So it doesn't quite fit the article, but I always thought this one was an accident waiting to happen.

It's a Dash 7. the stuff hanging from it is part of a ground penetraing radar. When I worked at MSP, I saw it come in to clear customs. They said they were heading down to the southwest to do a survey for water.


[cdn-www.airliners.net image 640x439]



Friend of mine flies that thing. That sensor rig is weird looking, but it's very well engineered and isn't going anywhere.
 
2013-06-15 09:10:55 PM  
Man, the new commenting system sucks. Where did all those spaces come from?
 
2013-06-15 09:13:31 PM  
Don't give me a P-39
With its engine mounted behind.
It will tumble and roll
And dig a big hole.
Don't give me a P-39.

/I keed. She's a wonderful plane.

//Just hate the stupid car-door design for the pilot to enter and exit.

///Hard to open a front-hinged door to bail out if you're going down in flames or tumbling out of control.
 
2013-06-15 09:18:15 PM  
The Zero a bad plane? Blasphemy!  It was damn near immortal at the start of hostilities.  The article would have been much better off with something like the LAGG-3 "guaranteed varnished coffin" or perhaps the Curtiss SB2C which, while it had some value, was known as the Son of a Biatch, 2nd class.  There were dozens of WWII planes that could have made it on this list.  The Zero was not one of them.
 
2013-06-15 09:21:46 PM  

phalamir: So, about the nuclear bomber:

You can have a plane that has a normally-fueled engine, that has to land on a pretty regular basis

OR

You can have a nuclear-fueled bomber that can fly for months.  BUT it needs a small squadron of planes following it, all burning fuel.  Where are you saving anything?  You are going to either have to land the nuclear one with its tender planes when they run out of fuel, or you will have to keep sending more planes out to replace them.  Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to build a couple more conventional bombers and put them in a rota.  Sounds like LeMay's brand of farktard stupidity at work.

Plus, can you imagine being the poor crew stuck aboard this farker?  10-1 says it would have been up for less than three weeks before one of the pilots just straight-out power-dived the sucker, while the rest of the crew cheered him on.


Not to mention the amount of supplies needed by the crew for a multi-month flight. Between that and the weight of the reactor itself, I'd be surprised if it could lift off at all.
 
2013-06-15 09:24:48 PM  
Since this seems like a plane nerd thread, I should point out that the Hamilton airshow this year has a FW190, and Me262, a Hurricane, a Spitfire, the only flying Mosquito and one of the two flying Lancasters.

The Lanc, Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito all went flying at the same time and did at least one flyby in formation, which would easily be the best sound ever created by man. Wish I didn't have to work this weekend..
 
2013-06-15 09:31:16 PM  

phalamir: So, about the nuclear bomber:

You can have a plane that has a normally-fueled engine, that has to land on a pretty regular basis

OR

You can have a nuclear-fueled bomber that can fly for months.  BUT it needs a small squadron of planes following it, all burning fuel.  Where are you saving anything?  You are going to either have to land the nuclear one with its tender planes when they run out of fuel, or you will have to keep sending more planes out to replace them.  Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to build a couple more conventional bombers and put them in a rota.  Sounds like LeMay's brand of farktard stupidity at work.

Plus, can you imagine being the poor crew stuck aboard this farker?  10-1 says it would have been up for less than three weeks before one of the pilots just straight-out power-dived the sucker, while the rest of the crew cheered him on.


for that scenario , you are forgetting the time this was all going down, the cold war,  and the notion that nuke powered subs were routine at the time. these Bombers were to be the airborne and visable counterparts to the unseen threat from below.

nuke sub operations operate for far longer than three weeks in just as bad as conditions. It is a matter of choosing a crew that for one, follows the reason, and two, doesn't mond the conditions.

in actual operation, save for some longevity stunts, an average mission would probably be about three weeks, at which point a new air craft would circle up to take over with no interuption of coverage while the preious crew and air craft would cicle back down to be replenished, repaired and so forth before recycling the operation again. And from the stories I've heard told by my cold war veteran relatives, It probably would have been a cake walk mission, if you are into that sort of thing.


Remember, all the nuke testing ever done was mostly done for rattling sabers, with legitimate scientific research hanging on for the ride. and the biggest thing anyone ever learned from any testing was that nukes were good for blowing shiat up, and little else after that.
 
2013-06-15 09:44:59 PM  

costermonger: Since this seems like a plane nerd thread, I should point out that the Hamilton airshow this year has a FW190, and Me262, a Hurricane, a Spitfire, the only flying Mosquito and one of the two flying Lancasters.

The Lanc, Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito all went flying at the same time and did at least one flyby in formation, which would easily be the best sound ever created by man. Wish I didn't have to work this weekend..


IMHO, the Mosquito is one of the prettiest planes ever built.  Just about the cleanest lines imaginable.

airpigz.com
 
2013-06-15 09:50:52 PM  
Atomic aircraft?  I always wish that the Russians went ahead with their idea. Nuclear airship.

www.airships.net
 
2013-06-15 09:58:37 PM  

Cerebral Knievel: nuke sub operations operate for far longer than three weeks in just as bad as conditions.


I'm not so sure.  From the sounds of it, everyone would be in a compartment the size of a big airstream trailer.  7 guys, all their food and supplies, and the cockpit and monitoring stations.  Even subs have more room.  Plus, subs at least give you the tension of the various ways the sea can kill you plus maybe running into someone else, so you get some respite from boredom via shiat-your-pants terror - this is "take a gentle bank to the right; hold that for 3 weeks."  Boredom, no tension to erase that, and 7 guys playing telephone booth = power-dive to relive the monotony.
 
2013-06-15 10:02:13 PM  

costermonger: Man, the new commenting system sucks. Where did all those spaces come from?


1. Click myFark
2. Uncheck the box that says "Enable modern rich text (WYSIWYG) editor for posting comments"
3. Click save

And now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
 
2013-06-15 10:03:13 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: IMHO, the Mosquito is one of the prettiest planes ever built.  Just about the cleanest lines imaginable.


Absolutely. And they were built like a fine musical instrument. Just an amazing aircraft all around.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:46 PM  
Oh hey guyz what's u...SPLAT.
1.bp.blogspot.com

/yeah yeah, they use it and it's "awesome"
//it's still a piece of sh*t...it's the M-16 of aircraft...it's used because of sheer bureaucratic will
 
2013-06-15 10:06:24 PM  

jaytkay: Mr_Juche: It's a Dash 7. the stuff hanging from it is part of a ground penetraing radar.

cdn-www.airliners.net

Rotating props. Loose cables hanging in front of those props.

What could possibly go wrong?


I'd be a bit concerned about the powerful radar and the radiation you are being exposed to in the cockpit of that thing.
 
2013-06-15 10:09:53 PM  
i137.photobucket.com

Really? I am the first?
 
2013-06-15 10:13:00 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: costermonger: Since this seems like a plane nerd thread, I should point out that the Hamilton airshow this year has a FW190, and Me262, a Hurricane, a Spitfire, the only flying Mosquito and one of the two flying Lancasters.

The Lanc, Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito all went flying at the same time and did at least one flyby in formation, which would easily be the best sound ever created by man. Wish I didn't have to work this weekend..

This was the bomber of choice when the RAF was trying to burst German dams.
IMHO, the Mosquito is one of the prettiest planes ever built.  Just about the cleanest lines imaginable.

[airpigz.com image 850x566]


The DeHavilland Mosquito ("Wooden Wonder") in particular was a spectacular British achievement, being a fearsome twin fighter bomber made of plywood and BALSA, yes, you read that right, BALSA WOOD. The Mosquito saw service as close air support, long range bombing, tactical short range bombing, and recon aircraft. It was made of these materials because DeHavilland promised (and delivered) a competitive warbird which placed no burdens on wartime metal needs. No sane German pilot wanted to be anywhere near this contrivance.
 
2013-06-15 10:14:21 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: costermonger: Since this seems like a plane nerd thread, I should point out that the Hamilton airshow this year has a FW190, and Me262, a Hurricane, a Spitfire, the only flying Mosquito and one of the two flying Lancasters.

The Lanc, Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito all went flying at the same time and did at least one flyby in formation, which would easily be the best sound ever created by man. Wish I didn't have to work this weekend..

IMHO, the Mosquito is one of the prettiest planes ever built.  Just about the cleanest lines imaginable.

[airpigz.com image 850x566]


Always been partial to the P-38:

img541.imageshack.us
 
2013-06-15 10:32:15 PM  

LargeCanine: [i137.photobucket.com image 200x319]

Really? I am the first?


I thought about that, but was torn between his early career and his porn roles.
 
2013-06-15 10:45:48 PM  

Kyosuke: I commend the article's creators for using a picture of an actual Zero instead of one of the many copies.


And I condemn for saying this:  "It became famous from that Michael Bay moviePearl Harbor, and for no other reasons "

Huh?  Michael Bay was born in 1965.  The Zero was made famous in plenty of WWII movies before he even hit puberty.   Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) comes to mind, but there were plenty of others some of which undoubtedly were made before he was even born.

Not only that, I'm pretty sure people who actually were alive during WWII knew what it was, but I'm just guessing about that as I'm not quite that old.
 
2013-06-15 10:48:48 PM  

jaytkay: cman: Science doesnt matter to a lot of people.

OMG THE NUCLEAR BOOGYMAN fear drives people insane

You're saying opposition to nuclear powered airplanes is insanity.

Please tell us more about nuclear-powered airplanes. That sounds interesting.


Hush, damnit! You don't want He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Taken-Seriously to come in here and ask about our failure to build light-speed 747s, do you?
 
2013-06-15 10:57:12 PM  
Coolest, hottest plane that never went into production.
www.456fis.org
 
2013-06-15 10:58:22 PM  

phalamir: So, about the nuclear bomber:

You can have a plane that has a normally-fueled engine, that has to land on a pretty regular basis

OR

You can have a nuclear-fueled bomber that can fly for months.  BUT it needs a small squadron of planes following it, all burning fuel.  Where are you saving anything?  You are going to either have to land the nuclear one with its tender planes when they run out of fuel, or you will have to keep sending more planes out to replace them.  Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to build a couple more conventional bombers and put them in a rota.  Sounds like LeMay's brand of farktard stupidity at work.

Plus, can you imagine being the poor crew stuck aboard this farker?  10-1 says it would have been up for less than three weeks before one of the pilots just straight-out power-dived the sucker, while the rest of the crew cheered him on.


The planes following it were only for testing, in case it crashed as prototypes sometimes do. Had it entered service it would have flown alone. And even staying up for 'only' a few days at a time would have made a huge difference in operational efficiency. Trying for missions of weeks would not have offered significant benefits and would have had drawbacks in crew performance.
 
2013-06-15 10:59:51 PM  

gfid: And I condemn for saying this: "It became famous from that Michael Bay moviePearl Harbor, and for no other reasons "


The experimental plane piloted by the joke flying over your head just killed its pilot.
 
2013-06-15 11:06:37 PM  

Lsherm: Fish in a Barrel: costermonger: Since this seems like a plane nerd thread, I should point out that the Hamilton airshow this year has a FW190, and Me262, a Hurricane, a Spitfire, the only flying Mosquito and one of the two flying Lancasters.

The Lanc, Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito all went flying at the same time and did at least one flyby in formation, which would easily be the best sound ever created by man. Wish I didn't have to work this weekend..

IMHO, the Mosquito is one of the prettiest planes ever built.  Just about the cleanest lines imaginable.

[airpigz.com image 850x566]

Always been partial to the P-38:

[img541.imageshack.us image 850x570]


Same here. I have a small toy-model of it. I ought to buy something a bit fancier. Invasion stripes are a must though.
 
kab
2013-06-15 11:09:29 PM  

Therion: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x192]

Catch a falling Starfighter
put it in the pocket of your jeans
you can use it as a cigarette lighter
or as an opener for a can of beans


Yep, any airplane that (iirc) forces you to eject while upside down doesn't have the pilot's best interest in mind
 
2013-06-15 11:10:16 PM  

Lsherm: Fish in a Barrel: costermonger: Since this seems like a plane nerd thread, I should point out that the Hamilton airshow this year has a FW190, and Me262, a Hurricane, a Spitfire, the only flying Mosquito and one of the two flying Lancasters.

The Lanc, Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito all went flying at the same time and did at least one flyby in formation, which would easily be the best sound ever created by man. Wish I didn't have to work this weekend..

IMHO, the Mosquito is one of the prettiest planes ever built.  Just about the cleanest lines imaginable.

[airpigz.com image 850x566]

Always been partial to the P-38:

[img541.imageshack.us image 850x570]


I was always a fan of the P-51.
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-15 11:16:45 PM  
My Grandad was old Air Force. He worked with mechanics who were assigned to the B-36. To get from the from of the plane to the back you had to lie down on a trollery and pull yourself through a long, narrow tube that ran through the bomb bay. If the plane depressurized in either the front or the back section, and you were in the tube, then you got a good idea how a bullet felt as it traveled the length of the gun barrel.

/Might be true.. I dunno.
 
2013-06-15 11:25:24 PM  
This thread really makes me want to play Crimson Skies again.
 
2013-06-15 11:30:04 PM  
They include the Zero, but not the Christmas Bullet?

Puh-lease...
 
2013-06-15 11:38:29 PM  
The Starfighter is an interesting plane because it spent most of it's operational history being used for a job it wasn't designed for and wasn't particularly good at. This is mostly because Lockheed bribed the shiat out of potential buyers, and the USAF thought it was an excellent candidate for export because they were never that impressed with it.

As a result, the Luftwaffe and RCAF spent a couple decades making hundreds holes in the ground in West Germany.

I've been told by a former CF-104 pilot that by the later versions, it was a very, very good fighter at high altitude. Just wasn't a safe ride at 300 feet.
 
2013-06-16 12:12:55 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: FrancoFile: I flew the X-29 forward-swept wing simulator when I was in HS.  They set me up on the standard landing approach pattern.

I went from 3000 feet to -30 feet in about 6 seconds...

It's a plane, not a shovel, dude.


Rolling on the floor, here, dude... that was flippin' FUNNY!

Awesome...
 
2013-06-16 12:15:24 AM  
Yeah, have to agree with others in this thread, the Zero doesn't deserve to be on the list. By all accounts it's a great plane to fly if no-one is shooting at you. Don't think the same could be said about planes like the Brewster Buffalo or the Mig-3 (though the Mig-3 to me was always a beautiful plane).
 
2013-06-16 12:21:59 AM  
I love these threads because I always learn something more about aviation history, CSB time:

TaleSpin was one of my favorite shows growing up (the freedom of flying for your own business, plus danger and adventure) so I've always fantasized about having my own WWII era plane and being a cargo shipper, but was always disappointed in the SeaDuck's lack of weapons... I have my favorite fighters (P38 and P51) but those don't fit the bill... enter a modified Avenger wherein the bomb compartment was converted into a cargo hold.  I spent months falling asleep to fantasies about having one of those, a crew, and a Wildcat back in the office to fix all the damage I had from fights.

/That show is key to why I love Futurama so much
//And was so disappointed in Voyager
///Also loved the Expendables for having a similar plane
////Might be a little sentimentally drunk at this point
 
2013-06-16 12:30:03 AM  
T2C Buckeye.

Well, I don't know how deadly it was anywhere else, but this one killed 3 pilots in 18mo in our squadron. I still remember where I was at when the last one went down. That day sucked balls.
images.defensetech.org
 
2013-06-16 12:35:47 AM  
The Lockheed L-188 Electra tried mightily to kill its pilots, passengers, and commercial aviation. The F-104 Starfighter was nicknamed the Widowmaker and the Coffin Nail. The V-tail Beechcraft Bonanza was known as the Doctor Killer. The list goes on and on. But on this list? Nope.
 
2013-06-16 01:39:18 AM  

Fish in a Barrel: IMHO, the Mosquito is one of the prettiest planes ever built.


One of.

Later WWII planes were better, but not better looking.

images.motorcycle-usa.com
 
2013-06-16 01:39:22 AM  
I agree that including the Zero is unfair, but he seems focused on the Zero as used in the Kamikaze role, in which case its more of the pilot having it in for the plane.  There were alot of other Japanese planes used as Kamikazes before Zeroes too though...
 
2013-06-16 01:52:03 AM  

AirGee: I agree that including the Zero is unfair, but he seems focused on the Zero as used in the Kamikaze role, in which case its more of the pilot having it in for the plane.  There were alot of other Japanese planes used as Kamikazes before Zeroes too though...


I got the impression that it was focusing on the fact that it was a flying tinderbox.  If you just looked at it the wrong way it would brew up.
 
2013-06-16 01:59:09 AM  

AtlanticCoast63: ...Let us take a look at this pilots' nightmare - the Heinkel He162:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x312]

Made mostly from wood (and accordingly GLUED) together, it was intended to be flown by teenagers with approximately 8-10 hours in the cockpit.  It did manage to kill its first test pilot when the glue failed, It had an endurance time of less than 30 minutes at cruise speed, far less if the pilot wanted to, you know, go fast.  One squadron actually got the damned things, and knocked down ONE British aircraft in the six weeks it was in service.  At least 13 of the He162s were lost in that six weeks - two of which fell to enemy aircraft.  The other 11 went down due to engine failures (MTBF for its engine was somewhere around four hours under ideal conditions, much less as the Luftwaffe disintegrated) or structural failures.  One more would go down after the war, taking its RAF test pilot with it due to a - wait for it - structural failure.

Opposing Viewpoint:  Eric Brown, one of the greatest British test pilots, swore the plane was never as bad as its reputation, but you had to be a highly skilled pilot to do it.


They did much better with the ME-262.
 
2013-06-16 02:20:16 AM  

UnspokenVoice: They did much better with the ME-262.


www.progarchives.com
/obligatory
 
2013-06-16 02:23:25 AM  

Cerebral Knievel: teto85: One A-4 pilot crashed 2 in flight training and another 2 on active duty and had a fifth one shot from under him in Vietnam.  The only reason he did not wash out after crashing 2 in flight school was the fact that his father and grandfather each were 4 star admirals.
The plane[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x208]
The pilot[foolsandfanatics.com image 539x340]

how DARE YOU suggest that AMERICAN HERO, that WOUNDED WARRIOR and BRAVE P.O.W. career was any thing LESS THAN HONORABLE!?

/amahdoinright?


He might have honor.  In fact he can be called "Honorable" in this country due to his being elected to office.  But he was, and is, a crappy pilot.
 
2013-06-16 02:24:29 AM  

Kurmudgeon: UnspokenVoice: They did much better with the ME-262.

[www.progarchives.com image 500x500]
/obligatory


An actually not bad album too. I'm old now but so long as I can picture the 262 I don't need Viagra.
 
2013-06-16 02:39:54 AM  
costermonger:

Friend of mine flies that thing. That sensor rig is weird looking, but it's very well engineered and isn't going anywhere.

Tell your friend he/she has a pretty cool gig. Oh, and I have no doubt about the engineering. I'm sure everything is properly secured and what not. But after so many years in this business you see that  everything breaks eventually. What can I say? I worry. Here's when I saw her up close:

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-06-16 07:59:28 AM  
The NB-36, as other have said, just had a test reactor on board. Here is one of the early experimental "jet" engine reactors. Probably a little big for an airborne platform.
 
2013-06-16 08:23:30 AM  
If this is going to be an "I was always partial to..." thread, I too love the P-38 and P-51, but my favorite?

www.classicfighters.org

and this one, because my dad flew it in vietnam

www.collingsfoundation.org
 
2013-06-16 08:48:30 AM  

jaytkay: cman: jaytkay: cman: Science doesnt matter to a lot of people.

OMG THE NUCLEAR BOOGYMAN fear drives people insane

You're saying opposition to nuclear powered airplanes is insanity.

Please tell us more about nuclear-powered airplanes. That sounds interesting.

My apologies, I should have been more specific.

I was speaking about the authors statement that nuclear power is a clean and safe energy, hence losing environmentalists.

Roger, got it thank you.

As a far-left environmentalist, I concur - nuclear power is a good idea. Coal and oil are more harmful.


you forgot the part where you need a protection against radiation.
On submarines, it is done with a LEAD-whall and the water around.
On an aircraft? Even more lead?
The russian solved the problem in their usual way:
"We have so many people here..."
 
2013-06-16 08:53:07 AM  
Some other aircraft that definitely disliked their pilots/aircrews:

upload.wikimedia.org
The 'Pou-de-Ciel', or Flying Flea, a French 'every man's airplane' that was so unstable, it had a bad tendency to be unrecoverable if you gave it down elevator.

upload.wikimedia.org
The Curtiss C-76 Caravan, one of the reasons Curtiss went from the largest aircraft company in the world in 1941 to out of the business just eight years later.   Unstable, overweight, and with a severe vibration problem, the first flight was terminated as quickly as the crew could decently get it back on the ground.  The second flight killed its crew, and that was that.

upload.wikimedia.org
The McDonnell XF-85 Goblin, a parasite fighter that was supposed to protect B-36s.  Not a bad idea and actually designed with care and intelligence by some of the best in the business.  Trouble was that the turbulence caused by the mothership had been badly underestimated as well as the effects caused by the Goblin trying to close in on the mothership.   The result was that the Goblin went from reasonably decent-flying experimental ship to out-of-control pilot killing Terminator, stopped in its mission only by the massive titanium balls of its pilot, Edwin Schoch.  Three attempts at docking, three collisions (one of which beat Schoch up pretty well), three forced landings.  At that point even the 50s USAF said enough, and cancelled the program.
 
2013-06-16 09:22:23 AM  

wjllope: If this is going to be an "I was always partial to..." thread, I too love the P-38 and P-51, but my favorite?

[www.classicfighters.org image 450x288]

and this one, because my dad flew it in vietnam

[www.collingsfoundation.org image 757x490]


Those are two of my favorites as well. Though I am partial to the 2 engine aircraft from WWII.
 
2013-06-16 09:24:17 AM  

AtlanticCoast63: The 'Pou-de-Ciel', or Flying Flea, a French 'every man's airplane' that was so unstable, it had a bad tendency to be unrecoverable if you gave it down elevator.


not realy true.
Actualy, the original design had a single-sided cable actated elevator, you could only pul up (by increasing front-wing incidence) and there was only a sandow for pulling down.
It is a sound, albeit limited design. Kinda like a giropter compares to a helicopter. And it is forgiving, but not fool-proof. The "Pou du ciel" was the first popular homebuilt in france, and was built -and sometimes "improved"- by many peoples who had not even built a model-plane before. That made it dangerous.
Today, the formula is understood, and many ultralights and modell-planes fly perfecly this way.
Oh, it has no ailerons!
 
2013-06-16 09:44:10 AM  
Ah, the nuclear powered bomber, one of Feynman's greatest jokes.

At Los Alamos they asked the scientists to run through all the basic patentable ideas to do with nuclear technology after the war, Feynman suggested a "cold air in / hot air out" type thrust system. For which he actually got a dollar.
 
2013-06-16 10:43:34 AM  

wildcardjack: Ah, the nuclear powered bomber, one of Feynman's greatest jokes.

At Los Alamos they asked the scientists to run through all the basic patentable ideas to do with nuclear technology after the war, Feynman suggested a "cold air in / hot air out" type thrust system. For which he actually got a dollar.


And then spent it on penny candy to share with everyone in the lab.
 
2013-06-16 10:46:40 AM  
Several people say the criticism of the Zero is unfair because it was effective at the start of the war. That's true to the same extent the Buffalo was effective when it was first built. When the Hellcat came along, the Zero was a pilot killer. Just as, when the Zero came along, the Buffalo was a pilot killer.

Put the Buffalo against biplanes and it's awesome.
 
2013-06-16 10:57:10 AM  

Lsherm: Fish in a Barrel: costermonger: Since this seems like a plane nerd thread, I should point out that the Hamilton airshow this year has a FW190, and Me262, a Hurricane, a Spitfire, the only flying Mosquito and one of the two flying Lancasters.

The Lanc, Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito all went flying at the same time and did at least one flyby in formation, which would easily be the best sound ever created by man. Wish I didn't have to work this weekend..

IMHO, the Mosquito is one of the prettiest planes ever built.  Just about the cleanest lines imaginable.

[airpigz.com image 850x566]

Always been partial to the P-38:

[img541.imageshack.us image 850x570]


Fapfapfap
 
2013-06-16 11:20:13 AM  

jaytkay: TFA: Just a few hits from the guns in a Hellcat would make the Zero explode

The Hellcat went into action almost two years after Pearl Harbor.

The Zero was one of the best combat planes in history. For its day. Which did not last long.

But the design was great in its day.


And we had problems with the Zero for a couple years, didn't we?

Here is an interesting read about the Zero from several sources, some of whom were those involved with its design, and some who had to deal with them in the early-mid 40s.

/no, really, it's a good read.
 
2013-06-16 11:34:07 AM  

JWMcLoud: Uhh, the Gee-Bee DID kill everyone who flew it (except one.)


And that one was of course Cliff Secord.

/Came for the Gee Bee
//Rocketing away satisfied
 
2013-06-16 01:07:15 PM  

Kibbler: . Just as, when the Zero came along, the Buffalo was a pilot killer.

Put the Buffalo against biplanes and it's awesome.


Respectfully disagree.  The Buffalo was a screamer in its pre-production form, but once they added things like guns, armor, radio, etc., it slowed down considerably - but in both forms, its pilots found it an easy plane to control.  Its lack of performance was what made it a death trap for its USN, USMC, and RAF aircrews.  The versions the Finns flew were 'de-navalized', (no tailhooks and their mounts, no life raft containers, along with some other odds and ends) and the Finnish mechanics were also able to tweak the engines (the colder climate helped too) to the point where the plane was an ace-maker against the Russians.  The Finns also built a wooden-winged version that they intended to produce themselves - only a couple prototypes got put together and tested, but their test pilots loved them and they could have put a world of hurt on the Soviets had it come down to it.

/loves a good-natured, spirited plane-vs-plane discussion
 
2013-06-16 01:07:31 PM  

JWMcLoud: Uhh, the Gee-Bee DID kill everyone who flew it (except one.)


Barry Gibb?
 
2013-06-16 01:16:50 PM  
LOLWUT

Wikipedia: Unlike standard propellers that turn at subsonic speeds, the outer 24-30 inches of the blades on the XF-84H's propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous visible sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards.
 
2013-06-16 01:19:44 PM  

AtlanticCoast63: Kibbler: . Just as, when the Zero came along, the Buffalo was a pilot killer.

Put the Buffalo against biplanes and it's awesome.

Respectfully disagree.  The Buffalo was a screamer in its pre-production form, but once they added things like guns, armor, radio, etc., it slowed down considerably - but in both forms, its pilots found it an easy plane to control.  Its lack of performance was what made it a death trap for its USN, USMC, and RAF aircrews.  The versions the Finns flew were 'de-navalized', (no tailhooks and their mounts, no life raft containers, along with some other odds and ends) and the Finnish mechanics were also able to tweak the engines (the colder climate helped too) to the point where the plane was an ace-maker against the Russians.  The Finns also built a wooden-winged version that they intended to produce themselves - only a couple prototypes got put together and tested, but their test pilots loved them and they could have put a world of hurt on the Soviets had it come down to it.

/loves a good-natured, spirited plane-vs-plane discussion


That. The Zero was considered the best naval fighter in the world when it was new, and for the early part of the Pacific war. It became a death trap only once American planes designed specifically to beat it - using tactics designed to kill it - showed up, and the Japanese never really adjusted.
 
2013-06-16 02:10:56 PM  

cman: Good Idea: Nuclear power provides clean and virtually limitless energy, with the latter attribute proving especially important for strategic bombers. Back in the Cold War, Strategic Air Command planes of the United States Air Force would fly in circles around the Arctic, waiting for their doomsday orders to bomb the Soviet Union. With a nuclear reactor on board, they could potentially stay on station for weeks or even months.

I think you lost the environmentalists with that statement

Science doesnt matter to a lot of people.

OMG THE NUCLEAR BOOGYMAN fear drives people insane


Well, let's look at the big picture.
What is the purpose of this aircraft?

Yeah.  To drop a farkton of nuclear bombs,

And it was built by the US military of the 1950s.

Really, I don't think that anybody was giving a flying fark about any "environmentalists".  It was all about, "Know what sucks?  Needing to land this baby to refill its gas tanks.  Know what also sucks?  I hear this guy over in the Navy named Rickover is trying to get ships that run on nuclear reactors.  We can't let the Navy beat us to having nuclear-powered vehicles, now can we?"
 
2013-06-16 02:16:49 PM  
www.airforce-technology.com

if you want something dead, use one of these
 
2013-06-16 02:30:47 PM  

I always liked the P-38.

www.dansdata.com
 
2013-06-16 03:39:04 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: My Grandad was old Air Force. He worked with mechanics who were assigned to the B-36. To get from the from of the plane to the back you had to lie down on a trollery and pull yourself through a long, narrow tube that ran through the bomb bay. If the plane depressurized in either the front or the back section, and you were in the tube, then you got a good idea how a bullet felt as it traveled the length of the gun barrel.

/Might be true.. I dunno.


It is true, but the plane is the B-29 and and there is no trolley.  You crawl through a tube over the bomb bay between the cockpit and the rear crew cabin..  It has pressure hatches on both ends.

I talked a WW II B-29 vet who said, "They never told us about the depressurization thing."
 
2013-06-16 03:41:09 PM  

Noah_Tall: JWMcLoud: Uhh, the Gee-Bee DID kill everyone who flew it (except one.)

And that one was of course Cliff Secord.

/Came for the Gee Bee
//Rocketing away satisfied


Jimmy Doolittle was killed in the Gee Bee?  Not.
 
2013-06-16 05:24:36 PM  

netringer: It is true, but the plane is the B-29 and and there is no trolley.


The photo above shows the Goblin being tested with a B-29, but it was created for the B-36 which had a trolley.
 
2013-06-16 06:49:43 PM  

kab: Therion: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x192]

Catch a falling Starfighter
put it in the pocket of your jeans
you can use it as a cigarette lighter
or as an opener for a can of beans

Yep, any airplane that (iirc) forces you to eject while upside down doesn't have the pilot's best interest in mind


My dad spent time in Germany near one of the USAF bases when they were flying F-104s. He told me that the locals claimed that if you wanted a Starfighter, to just rent a plot of land and wait.
 
2013-06-16 09:02:04 PM  
A disappointing list. Fortunately, the comment threads there and here more than made up for it. :)
 
2013-06-16 09:16:38 PM  

wjllope: and this one, because my dad flew it in vietnam


My dad flew this in Vietnam:

www.militaryfactory.com

It was, still is, and will always be an ugly piece of shiat.
 
2013-06-16 09:40:55 PM  

wjllope: If this is going to be an "I was always partial to..." thread, I too love the P-38 and P-51, but my favorite?

[www.classicfighters.org image 450x288]

and this one, because my dad flew it in vietnam

[www.collingsfoundation.org image 757x490]


I've always liked the Corsair.

I'm also partial to the F-86.  My grandfather disappeared in one during Korea.

upload.wikimedia.org

This was his unit.
 
2013-06-16 09:52:26 PM  
My commanding officer flew a Thud in Vietnam. He called it a triple-threat aircraft: strafe 'em, bomb 'em, and fall on 'em.
 
2013-06-17 12:47:57 AM  

AtlanticCoast63: Some other aircraft that definitely disliked their pilots/aircrews:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x178]
The 'Pou-de-Ciel', or Flying Flea, a French 'every man's airplane' that was so unstable, it had a bad tendency to be unrecoverable if you gave it down elevator.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x106]
The Curtiss C-76 Caravan, one of the reasons Curtiss went from the largest aircraft company in the world in 1941 to out of the business just eight years later.   Unstable, overweight, and with a severe vibration problem, the first flight was terminated as quickly as the crew could decently get it back on the ground.  The second flight killed its crew, and that was that.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x436]
The McDonnell XF-85 Goblin, a parasite fighter that was supposed to protect B-36s.  Not a bad idea and actually designed with care and intelligence by some of the best in the business.  Trouble was that the turbulence caused by the mothership had been badly underestimated as well as the effects caused by the Goblin trying to close in on the mothership.   The result was that the Goblin went from reasonably decent-flying experimental ship to out-of-control pilot killing Terminator, stopped in its mission only by the massive titanium balls of its pilot, Edwin Schoch.  Three attempts at docking, three collisions (one of which beat Schoch up pretty well), three forced landings.  At that point even the 50s USAF said enough, and cancelled the program.


They have a Goblin on display at the Strategic Air and Space Museum near Ashland, NE.  Totally worth a visit if you like war planes and whatnot from various ages.

I'd always been a fan of the B-36 they have, since when they were located at the north east end of Offutt AirForce base.

I might stop by there late this week.  Yay vacation!

/Yep, still drunk.
 
2013-06-17 02:11:13 AM  

jaytkay: cman: jaytkay: cman: Science doesnt matter to a lot of people.

OMG THE NUCLEAR BOOGYMAN fear drives people insane

You're saying opposition to nuclear powered airplanes is insanity.

Please tell us more about nuclear-powered airplanes. That sounds interesting.

My apologies, I should have been more specific.

I was speaking about the authors statement that nuclear power is a clean and safe energy, hence losing environmentalists.

Roger, got it thank you.

As a far-left environmentalist, I concur - nuclear power is a good idea. Coal and oil are more harmful.


I too wish nuclear was less vilified. It fits into the alternative energy portfolio, especially as a baseline generator for when the wind ain't blowing or the sun ain't shining.
One caveat (aside from acknowledged safety concerns) is tremendous expense, in this country at least. It'll be interesting to see how successful Russia/China will be at developing and running newer, safer, better, stronger reactors.
 
2013-06-17 02:35:34 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [www.airforce-technology.com image 620x371]

if you want something dead, use one of these


Well, it sure didn't kill many pilots. Hell, there's a USAF pilot out there famous for flying one torn to shreds back to base. She's cute, too.
 
2013-06-17 05:55:34 AM  

RatMaster999: wjllope: If this is going to be an "I was always partial to..." thread, I too love the P-38 and P-51, but my favorite?

[www.classicfighters.org image 450x288]

and this one, because my dad flew it in vietnam

[www.collingsfoundation.org image 757x490]

I've always liked the Corsair.

I'm also partial to the F-86.  My grandfather disappeared in one during Korea.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x374]

This was his unit.


Ratmaster999, recognized that right off the bat - 335th 'Chiefs', 4th Fighter Wing - a friend of mine just finished a series of models of 4 FW birds for the Wing Commander's office.
 
2013-06-17 06:15:36 AM  
I remember hearing my Dad talk about F-105's he repaired in Viet Nam being nicknamed "Thud", partly because the hydraulic flight control systems were easily damaged and turned the plane into a flying (falling) brick. They were joking referred to as a triple threat: 'they could strafe you, bomb you, or fall on you'.
 
2013-06-17 08:49:17 AM  

Metaluna Mutant: Coolest, hottest plane that never went into production.
[www.456fis.org image 650x386]


Is that the plane (kinda) that the Venture Bros one is based off of?
 
2013-06-17 09:45:31 AM  

ThreadSinger: Metaluna Mutant: Coolest, hottest plane that never went into production.
[www.456fis.org image 650x386]

Is that the plane (kinda) that the Venture Bros one is based off of?


Indirectly.  The Venture Jet was an homage to the Quest Jet from the old JOHNNY QUEST cartoon:

davidszondy.com

Which was sort of based on the XB-70, since the design of that plane was quintessentially midcentury
'futuristic'.

The Venture Jet:

venturefans.org

Looks a lot more like the Concorde to me, but I can see more than a but of XB-70 in it.
 
Displayed 113 of 113 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report