Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)

Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Eric Mc

121,777 posts

264 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
Paris 1973? If so, the Tu-144 didn't have much time left.

MartG

20,621 posts

203 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Drakens on an off-base exercise


EskimoArapaho

5,135 posts

134 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
Love it! Taking your pet dragon for a walk down the road. smile

Steve_D

13,737 posts

257 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
Don't know if they still do but they used to have sections of dual carriageway where they could fold down the lampposts to use the road as a runway.

Steve

MartG

20,621 posts

203 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Weird one....

Tu-4 used as a test bed for Tu-91 engine and aerodynamics. Tu-91 was an attempt for a maritime bomber but never entered into production.



Tu-91


Eric Mc

121,777 posts

264 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
That is ugly.

But interesting.

hidetheelephants

23,753 posts

192 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
It certainly surpasses the Gannet and Seamew in the ugly stakes, quite an achievement.

DJFish

5,917 posts

262 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Tish & pish, the Gannet wasn't ugly, functional yes, but not ugly.
The pic below proves it looks lovely (in the dark)
Though I concede the AEW3 may have Been a bit ugly.
Soviet design can be so agricultural.



Edited by DJFish on Thursday 26th November 13:49


Edited by DJFish on Thursday 26th November 13:49

dafeller

599 posts

189 months

Friday 4th December 2015
quotequote all
[quote=bencollins]My vote for dangerous plane is the starfighter, just one look at its proportions you know it was crap. Perhaps earlier planes were more dangerous, but they should have known better by the sixties.


I think the F-104 was only worth considering as a dangerous aircraft in the hands of German pilots. In the hands of Dutch pilots, the Hawker Hunter had a higher accident rate per use period, and the F84, F-86 and Gloster Meteor required the pilots to submit an up-to-date will before taking off. The F-104 had an accident rate of almost half what the F-16 does in the Netherlands AF per 100,000 air hours.

The early German experience was how the F-104 got the name 'widowmaker', but even in Germany the F-84 was probably at least twice as dangerous.

Eric Mc

121,777 posts

264 months

Friday 4th December 2015
quotequote all
Agreed. It's a very unfairly maligned aircraft.

irocfan

40,152 posts

189 months

Friday 4th December 2015
quotequote all
dafeller said:
bencollins said:
My vote for dangerous plane is the starfighter, just one look at its proportions you know it was crap. Perhaps earlier planes were more dangerous, but they should have known better by the sixties.


I think the F-104 was only worth considering as a dangerous aircraft in the hands of German pilots. In the hands of Dutch pilots, the Hawker Hunter had a higher accident rate per use period, and the F84, F-86 and Gloster Meteor required the pilots to submit an up-to-date will before taking off. The F-104 had an accident rate of almost half what the F-16 does in the Netherlands AF per 100,000 air hours.

The early German experience was how the F-104 got the name 'widowmaker', but even in Germany the F-84 was probably at least twice as dangerous.
I guess that the question then becomes why the Starfighter was such a problem for the Germans?

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Friday 4th December 2015
quotequote all
And no one ever seems to mention the Harrier - http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_typ...

Eric Mc

121,777 posts

264 months

Friday 4th December 2015
quotequote all
irocfan said:
I guess that the question then becomes why the Starfighter was such a problem for the Germans?
It's quite well documented that the Luftwaffe training syllabus inadequately prepared Starfighter pilots for the harsh weather conditions encountered in Northern Europe. All their basic training on the F-104 was conducted in the bright and clear weather of Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.

tuffer

8,849 posts

266 months

Friday 4th December 2015
quotequote all
FourWheelDrift said:
And no one ever seems to mention the Harrier - http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_typ...
That made good reading, 116 airframes lost, Harriers do not glide well. The Buzzard strike at Laarbruch caused me some issues.....the aircraft landed at the bottom of my garden and I was not allowed home until they cleaned it up.

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Saturday 5th December 2015
quotequote all
tuffer said:
Harriers do not glide well.
My Instructor at Basic was a Harrier pilot. He told me that 'High Key' (the point abeam the runway threshold from which you would start an engine out circling descent to land) was 10,000 ft. For comparison purposes High key in a JP was 2500 ft!


Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Saturday 5th December 14:17

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Saturday 5th December 2015
quotequote all
Has anyone ever landed a Harrier after a total engine failure?

eccles

13,720 posts

221 months

Saturday 5th December 2015
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Has anyone ever landed a Harrier after a total engine failure?
Define 'land' biggrin

Caruso

7,422 posts

255 months

Saturday 5th December 2015
quotequote all
eccles said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Has anyone ever landed a Harrier after a total engine failure?
Define 'land' biggrin


Name of user

175 posts

106 months

Saturday 5th December 2015
quotequote all
Caruso said:
eccles said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Has anyone ever landed a Harrier after a total engine failure?
Define 'land' biggrin
I think I'd call that water.

irocfan

40,152 posts

189 months

Friday 11th December 2015
quotequote all





TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED