The General Airplane Thread
- Thread starter Crash
- 2,744 comments
- 190,476 views
- 22,550
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
At least not one of an aircraft being welded together, eh Russia? 
Carlos
Premium
- 6,453
- Netherlands
You can call it the stinger. Yes radar and it's probably true.. It also houses the brake parachute, countermeasures, fuel storage and fuel jettison outlet. Su-33 has the tail hook in there but shorter stinger to reduce risk of hitting the deck with it.
I always loved the look of the Su-34. Must be nice sitting next to each other.
Fun fact: Su-xx models with twin nose wheels have heavier radars equipped.
Cockpit in the Su-34 is large enough for pilots to stand up and take a small walk during long flights. You can even go the toilet..
Dan
Premium
- 15,396
- United States
You can call it the stinger. Yes radar and it's probably true.. It also houses the brake parachute, countermeasures, fuel storage and fuel jettison outlet. Su-33 has the tail hook in there but shorter stinger to reduce risk of hitting the deck with it.
I always loved the look of the Su-34. Must be nice sitting next to each other.
Fun fact: Su-xx models with twin nose wheels have heavier radars equipped.
Cockpit in the Su-34 is large enough for pilots to stand up and take a small walk during long flights. You can even go the toilet..
Are there any good photos of the Su-34's cockpit? I'd like to see everything inside.
- 2,436
- Atlanta
- atomicjellyfish
Time for some Growler/Hornet goodness 
- 6,425
- KCCO
that's actually a nice HDR..
Dan
Premium
- 15,396
- United States
Time for some Growler/Hornet goodness
At first, I was thinking "Why did you post two Hornets? Where's the Growler?" until I did some reading. Derp.
- 2,681
- Knoxville, Tennessee
Don't think this has ever been posted here, but even if it has, it deserves a repost:
- 2,436
- Atlanta
- atomicjellyfish
^I love those things. As a kid I would boot up Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 2 and go island hopping in a P-38. It was just so cool... no other fighter plane looked like it and I loved that about it.
One of my favorite images of it:
Also, today Air Force One landed in Cuba for the first time ever.
One of my favorite images of it:
Also, today Air Force One landed in Cuba for the first time ever.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
I definitely intend to catch this year's show. Besides the Lightning, there's a couple other new "faces" this year; the Bf-109G, a Mosquito, a Kate (replica) to go along with the Val (replica).Oh yeah!!!! P-38 has been confirmed for the Mid Atlantic Air Museum's WW2 Weekend in June!
The roster is here, subject to change of course.
Dan
Premium
- 15,396
- United States
I'm writing a satirical paper for my English class. We were assigned to pick a topic that has been bothering us and to write a paper mocking it, essentially. I chose the F-35 program. As I keep reading about it, I'm getting more annoyed at the program. Aside from the obvious problems we all know, there's other stupid things. The F-35B isn't supposed to do vertical landings because it causes stress on the plane's systems. Now, it has to do conventional landings on carriers, but it doesn't have a tail hook for the arresting cable! Now, conventional landings causes too much wear on the poorly designed tires! What is Lockheed thinking?!
- 9,554
- Vermont
- catamount39
Don't forget an afterburner which may cause the engine to explode (forget where I heard that, it was something how pilots were being told to avoid using afterburner as it could cause engine failure or catastrophic engine failure as the engine wasn't able to take the stress).
But seriously I cannot believe how cruddy the F-35 is. Bet the Military is wishing they went with the Boeing design contract now...come on....WHO FORGETS THE LANDING HOOK ON A NAVAL FIGHTER?!
Last edited:
Dan
Premium
- 15,396
- United States
Don't forget an afterburner which may cause the engine to explode (forget where I heard that, it was something how pilots were being told to avoid using afterburner as it could cause engine failure or catastrophic engine failure as the engine wasn't able to take the stress).
But seriously I cannot believe how cruddy the F-35 is. Bet the Military is wishing they went with the Boeing design contract now...come on....WHO FORGETS THE LANDING HOOK ON A NAVAL FIGHTER?!
I wouldn't want to cause any DANGER TO MANIFOLD or have the floor fall out, either.
It's very reassuring when the response to someone asking if the F135 were to fail, is just an abrupt "It won't." Something tells me a mid-air restart would be much harder in an F-35 than anything else.
- 5,053
- Panama City, FL
Well, the B isn't the navy version, it's the Marine version, so it's not supposed to have a tail hook. It's supposed to be the short takeoff vertical landing, but if the vertical landing is removed, maybe all that's left is short landing.
Marine "carriers" aren't what you think of when you think aircraft carriers. They don't have catapults or arresting gear. What would a Marine airplane need with a tailhook, when the Marine carrier doesn't have arresting cables?
I can't speak for your mention of afterburner issues, but don't criticize the 35B as a naval failure when it's not even a naval fighter. Look to the C for the carrier version of the F-35.
- 15,910
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
The F-35 program was (and still is) a total joke. The Australian Air Force STILL haven't got theirs after 10 years and the cost of the order was massive. In fact I don't even know the entire situation, probably because there's been no development for ages. I mean, the ONLY fighter active is still the Hornet from 30 years ago, along with the updated Super Hornet. That plane oozes charisma though... and in my mind it's up there with the Mustang, Spitfire, Tomcat, Sabre and F-22 as one of the best fighters ever.
- 6,425
- KCCO
- 9,554
- Vermont
- catamount39
Much better. 👍 F-22 is a fancy toy that has never proven itself in combat.
- 2,681
- Knoxville, Tennessee
Well, while the F-22 has never done any more combat than dropping a few JDAM's, it has dominated in dissimilar air combat training against F-15, F-16, and F-18 aircraft, with a very high "kill" ratio. Until ISIS fields fighter jets or the unfortunate event that we happen to fight someone with an actual air force, I am confident the F-22 will do just fine. Granted, I am sure people said the same things about the F-14, F-15, and other 4th gen fighters when they first came out in the 1970's and 1980's.
Heck, the B-1B didn't drop a single bomb in combat till 12 years after it entered service lol...
Heck, the B-1B didn't drop a single bomb in combat till 12 years after it entered service lol...
- 9,554
- Vermont
- catamount39
- 2,681
- Knoxville, Tennessee
The original concept for the F-35 as a direct F-16 replacement wasn't too bad. The problem is when they tried to make one plane do all, which NEVER works out as intended (see General Dynamics F-111B). If they left out the CATOBAR (C model) and STOVL (B model) requirements, you would have had a nifty little F-16 replacement. Navy and USAF requirements are so vastly different, that they often require completely different airframes. Granted, a Navy design can be more easily adapted to a USAF design than vice versa. Also the Marines should have just had a purpose built STOVL aircraft design instead of trying to shoehorn it into a do-everything airframe. Also, politicians play a huge part of the blame as well, and Lockheed Martin a big part too.
The only F-35 that will be half decent is the basic F-35A model of the USAF, since it is the lightest and least complex of the 3.
The only F-35 that will be half decent is the basic F-35A model of the USAF, since it is the lightest and least complex of the 3.
- 7,573
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
The F-18 actually has quite a few problems going all the way back to the YF-17. Its origin as a cheap dogfighter compromises raise and supersonic performance. It has an important history for sure, but the F-35 is at least as good.
Don't forget that the F-18 originally also shook itself to pieces. There just wasn't internet around to spread that around at the time.
This is why the plane has vertical strakes just ahead of the wing:
There are a few reasons. The F-22 being cut down in numbers continually is one. That was just one of the poorly thought out actions that were taken post Cold War. Disarming in a world where your primary threat has fallen makes sense but it was not well planned out at all. The F-35 is for some reason singled out but long and expensive has been the norm since the 90's.
Another thing is that the F-22 is getting old. The ATF flyoff concluded in 1992 with F-22's entering service after lengthy development in 2005. The stealth and avionics are older generation technology that is less advanced and harder to maintain. A fleet of F-35's costs less than one of F-22's. Speed and agility are great, but those two things alone don't make a better fighter. The age of the F-22 combined with low production also means there is another problem, airframe life. Over time F-22's will be lost to accidents/combat/age and they can't be replaced if the factories that make them don't exist.
The F-22 was also not exported.
They would all end up costing you more in a large scale war as they were all downed by S-300/400 class SAM's. For small wars they are vastly over priced. The teen series should have all been retired by now.
Last edited:
Carlos
Premium
- 6,453
- Netherlands
Like said above (the A is potentially a good plane) I guess it still takes a couple of years sorting out issues. Scheduled operational end of 2016, we receive our 37 A's in 2019. Then each country is going to have their own problems and it'll take another couple of years to sort that out. Maybe by 2030 we feel comfortable enough to put our 61 MLU's to sleep.
I wonder how many F-35's are actually going to be active and not in maintenance...
I wonder how many F-35's are actually going to be active and not in maintenance...
Similar threads
