- 12,298
- Ealing-London
Badass photo!
That's insane!
Is it possible it has been faked? I can't believe the airframe could take that, let alone that it would take 100 tries to get it that perfect.
Badass photo!
That's insane!
Is it possible it has been faked? I can't believe the airframe could take that, let alone that it would take 100 tries to get it that perfect.
I counter your Ka-50 with this:
Every time around this year I do some high altitude gliding with smokers to imitate turbine contrails, I usually call these outings project AuroraSo I spend a little time each month on Dreamland Resort which is mainly a site about Area 51 (top secret aircraft development, NOT alien stuff) and they've been chatting about some mystery plains spotted over Kansas and Texas recently. Some are saying B2's, but the trailing edge of the plane in question seems to be different than the B2, also the "point" of the leading edges seems to be at different angles.
Kansas: (Read more HERE)
Texas: (Read more HERE)
Thoughts?
Yes, pretty loud. A lot louder than the 160 or 22M.Great picks! Were the Bears as loud as I'm told they are?
Also, I like how you largely refrained from NATO call signs too
I'm all for it, the NATO names weren't the best, certainly not if they're your own aircraft.Yes, pretty loud. A lot louder than the 160 or 22M.
I don't like the NATO designations, we have our own. The Tu-160 is not Blackjack, it's White Swan to us. And the Mi-24/35 is a Crocodile, not Hind. The Bear is identical though (Medved')
The NATO names aren't great, but it seems that there's a reason for it. Aside from the first letter denoting the type of aircraft, the number of syllables gives propulsion - one syllable words for props, multiple syllables for jets. The wiki entry is short, but interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_reporting_nameI'm all for it, the NATO names weren't the best, certainly not if they're your own aircraft.
My photos from the Victory Parade on May, 9.
Il-78 aerial refueling tanker & Tu-160 "White Swan" supersonic strategic bomber / missile carrier
I don't know, I think even some of the silly names sound kind of iconic now just because of how good the planes were. But then there are also ones like Flagon and Flipper...I'm all for it, the NATO names weren't the best, certainly not if they're your own aircraft.
Northrop fighters are too underrated. Sometimes I wonder what would have been if the F-20 was taken over the F-16.Ghost Tiger by SteveVonlanthenPhotography, on Flickr
World's largest combat aircraft, and the second fastest strategic bomber (after the XB-70 Valkyrie).You forgot to append "World's largest" to that. It's almost like you were in Russia or something.
Visually or engineering wise? I can't really agree with either. The EF-2000 is pretty much the best thing at air to air that isn't a F-22.I don't really see the Eurofighter being that amazing. It is basically a modernised version of this designed in 1945 in my eyes.
Visually or engineering wise? I can't really agree with either. The EF-2000 is pretty much the best thing at air to air that isn't a F-22.
Without stealth, getting to the dogfight could prove tricky. You also need to consider that exercises can involve handicaps, it's hard to get the meaning of the outcome without knowing the rules for the particular exercise.IIRC in some dog fighting exercises the Typhoon was actually dead even or slightly better than the F-22, with the main disadvantage being the lack of stealthiness.
Taking this another direction -
Finally got to fly one of these for the first time last weekend.
IIRC in some dog fighting exercises the Typhoon was actually dead even or slightly better than the F-22, with the main disadvantage being the lack of stealthiness.
How do you figure? What do they have in common, aside from single pilot single pusher engine (with different types of engine, yet) canard? Features also shared with the Wright Flyer. as @Exorcet points out.I don't really see the Eurofighter being that amazing. It is basically a modernised version of this designed in 1945 in my eyes.
You know, there's a pretty long list of aircraft that were "expected to be one of the best" but didn't pan out so well. I'm not seeing anything particularly exciting in its specs, compared to its contemporaries. Quite the opposite, in fact.The J7W was expected to be one of the best according to tests as well. The EF had 50 years to improve the design.