# 'Ghost Rider': B-52 resurrected from desert Boneyard



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 23, 2015)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/21/us/arizona-b-52-restored/index.html

It's the first B-52 to be pulled from retirement.  It is replacing a B-52 that caught on fire during maintenance.  There are only 78 B-52s still in service out of 744 built.


----------



## RCoon (Feb 23, 2015)

Hard to believe America thinks they need such a blunt instrument in their fleet. I mean those things were for big wars and mass carpet bombing of massive areas. I don't think the terrorist threat really needs such a titan craft, unless America intends on "removing" the mountain the insurgents are hiding underneath with one of these things.

Glad to hear such a marvel of engineering still flies after 50 years though! Don't make 'em like they used to.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Feb 23, 2015)

RCoon said:


> unless America intends on "removing" the mountain the insurgents are hiding underneath with one of these things.


I think that is part of what they do.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 23, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Hard to believe America thinks they need such a blunt instrument in their fleet. I mean those things were for big wars and mass carpet bombing of massive areas. I don't think the terrorist threat really needs such a titan craft, unless America intends on "removing" the mountain the insurgents are hiding underneath with one of these things.
> 
> Glad to hear such a marvel of engineering still flies after 50 years though! Don't make 'em like they used to.



They've actually been modified over the years to deliver ALCM's and other precision munitions, along with all their electronics, etc., so their mission is more of a strike aircraft, altho from a distance.


----------



## rooivalk (Feb 23, 2015)

I don't think current primary concern for US is 'terrorist'. They're focused on Pacific for a reason.

Even if they are, B-52 is actually cheaper alternative than their heavy bomber counterparts such as lancer or spirit. 
Even better, B-52 is capable and already deployed for CAS missions. Long loiter time, out of reach high altitude precision bombing and shitload of bombs are relevant for asymmetric warfare.

Agree, they're one example of the marvel of engineering. They're planned to be used until 2040(!).


----------



## droopyRO (Feb 23, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Hard to believe America thinks they need such a blunt instrument in their fleet. I mean those things were for big wars and mass carpet bombing of massive areas. I don't think the terrorist threat really needs such a titan craft, unless America intends on "removing" the mountain the insurgents are hiding underneath with one of these things.
> 
> Glad to hear such a marvel of engineering still flies after 50 years though! Don't make 'em like they used to.


Well if you go against ISIS in a desert against columns of vehicles, cluster bombs and JDAMs would be very effective, coupled with loiter time and high payload it would be like 2001 Afghanistan. Would have liked to see a XB-70 though


----------



## REAYTH (Feb 23, 2015)

I suspect with Russia acting like a bunch of re-re's more of these beasts will be coming out of retirement.


----------



## erocker (Feb 23, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Hard to believe America thinks they need such a blunt instrument in their fleet.


It's not really a blunt instrument.. anymore. They're more used for basically flying mobile bases, C&C, surveillance and things like that.

The USAF is also looking to re-engine the B52 fleet, and plan on using them until at least 2040! http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/once-again-the-usaf-is-looking-to-re-engine-its-b-52-fl-1685747978


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 23, 2015)

The B-1B has the B-52 upstaged in every way except unit cost.  Basically, B-1B and B-2 and F-22 take control of the skies and eliminate imminent threats on the ground (RADARs, SAM sites, runways, etc.) and once air superiority has been established, the B-52s come in to maintain it.  The reason is simple: the former aircraft cost a lot more per flight hour to operate than ye ol' workhorse B-52.  Sure, B-52s could probably be replaced with a more modern airframe but...why?  That's why they intend the fleet to keep on chugging away.  So long as it succeeds at its role, there's no sense spending billions contracting the design of a new aircraft.

What's ironic is that the B-52 is more or less considered a medium bomber by today's standards.  It's like Barney--a dinosaur everybody loves. XD


----------



## VulkanBros (Feb 23, 2015)

Cut the crap - give us the SR-71 "BlackBird" again.....coolest plane ...ever...fact...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 23, 2015)

For safety reasons, Ghost Rider made the entire flight with its landing gear down, at a speed of only 288 mph and at a height of 23,000 feet, well below its top speed of 650 mph and ceiling of 50,000 feet, according to the Times report.

I would loved to have seen that, low level, low speed, and with the wheels down !
I wonder if one will ever make it to an airshow in the UK.

Vulcan  bombers used to fly low level down the valley i grew up in .....awesome. I was lucky enough to be on the roof at Heathrow when the last Concorde took off and landed. The power in these aircraft is absolutely immense.

The B 52 is more of an instrument of peace than war considering the deterrent aspect and potential of it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 23, 2015)

VulkanBros said:


> Cut the crap - give us the SR-71 "BlackBird" again.....coolest plane ...ever...fact...


Replaced by satellites, drones, and probably at least one black project.


----------



## erocker (Feb 23, 2015)

VulkanBros said:


> coolest plane ...ever...fact...


Confirmed.

Plus, look at that cockpit! All analog baby!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

erocker said:


> It's not really a blunt instrument.. anymore. They're more used for basically flying mobile bases, C&C, surveillance and things like that.
> 
> The USAF is also looking to re-engine the B52 fleet, and plan on using them until at least 2040! http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/once-again-the-usaf-is-looking-to-re-engine-its-b-52-fl-1685747978



Scroll down that link and theres a brilliant vid demonstrating how physical it is to fly one of these. Oh.......check the shit flying out the back, one gallon of juice every second i think it mentions.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 24, 2015)

Watch further down on that linked page in the link and you see how it is designed to land sodeways in heavy crosswinds, too.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2015)

They would need to remove the pylons and put in a large engine replacing each pair.  Fuel efficiency would dramatically increase as would power but they would need to reevaluate its flight characteristics to make sure it still operates as intended loaded and unloaded.  It's a huge undertaking and not cheap considering the R&D costs followed by retrofitting 78 aircraft.  That's probably why it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Norton (Feb 24, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Watch further down on that linked page in the link and you see how it is designed to land sodeways in heavy crosswinds, too.



You mean like this:









How about landing with the tail blown off:









Quite an amazing airplane!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 24, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Hard to believe America thinks they need such a blunt instrument in their fleet. I mean those things were for big wars and mass carpet bombing of massive areas. I don't think the terrorist threat really needs such a titan craft, unless America intends on "removing" the mountain the insurgents are hiding underneath with one of these things.
> 
> Glad to hear such a marvel of engineering still flies after 50 years though! Don't make 'em like they used to.



b-52s are accurate today compared to what they were in the 50s/60s


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2015)

Wikipedia said:
			
		

> A notable feature of the landing gear was the ability to pivot the main landing gear up to 20° from the aircraft centerline to increase safety during crosswind landings.


I don't know of any other aircraft that does that.  That's the advantage of having 4 landing gear with a pair of tires each but that also limits its payload.





Here's B-1B for comparison (more payload than B-52):




Size reference:


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

If you like the B52 and have 23 mins spare.....this is very good.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 24, 2015)

And they thought they had to invade other countries looking for weapons of mass destruction, when their backyard is full of them.


----------



## ne6togadno (Feb 24, 2015)

http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/s-a-m-60-the-flying-wing-firebird
http://www.flyingmidshipmen.org/k7russianbmbr.html


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

ne6togadno said:


> http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/s-a-m-60-the-flying-wing-firebird
> http://www.flyingmidshipmen.org/k7russianbmbr.html





*Amazing links*.....


 i will file them away for my secret private stash....you know, the sort us boys have.  


Aviation history interests me a lot and there is tons of it all over the internut.

we were lucky that cinematography emerged at a similar time in history.


----------



## Liquid Cool (Feb 24, 2015)

I like the B17 and the B29's...my father flew both in the war.

If you like odd planes(ufo's), just do a little research into 'foo fighters' from WWII.  Crazy stories...

Best,

LC


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

An excellent series  * Flying Through Time


https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Wings Flying Through Time *


The big stuff


----------



## ne6togadno (Feb 24, 2015)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X
http://pro-samolet.ru/samolety-sssr-ww2/bomberdir/507-bombardirovshik-sssr-k-12-kalinin
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Т-4_(самолёт) russion equivalent of xb 70
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25 M3.2@25000m (~3400km/h), max take off weight 42000kg (tank t72 41.5 tonnes )



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> An excellent series  * Flying Through Time
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Wings Flying Through Time *
> The big stuff


film that made me to become aircaft engeenier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaching_for_the_Skies - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNQ-K755_QX9ZnqVV8Vj1Pr44-hg19DsG


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

Analogue......... Concorde.








I never flew on her, but i loved Concorde, our windows rattled when the sonic boom hit us every night when she flew to New York.

Much later on in life i worked at London Heathrow and sat in her many times ( yes, i had quite an important job there). i also sneaked my camera onto the apron and took some naughty snaps.
i think i might get in trouble if i post them as i may get identified.

Same engines as the Vulcan Bomber


----------



## ne6togadno (Feb 24, 2015)

nazi's b2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229











CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Analogue.........


mig 29


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

Looks like someone pinched the cigarette lighter


----------



## droopyRO (Feb 24, 2015)

VulkanBros said:


> Cut the crap - give us the SR-71 "BlackBird" again.....coolest plane ...ever...fact...







I dont know what to say.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

droopyRO said:


> I dont know what to say.




what it is might be a good start.....

the people look like cgi


----------



## ne6togadno (Feb 24, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Looks like someone pinched the cigarette lighter
> 
> View attachment 62901
> 
> ...


i think those are connectors for air for flight suit but not 100% sure


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

B 52 mid air refuelling and carpet bombing vid












all in a days work for some.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2015)

ne6togadno said:


> http://www.flyingmidshipmen.org/k7russianbmbr.html


Howard Hughes isn't the only crazy one apparently. 



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> the people look like cgi


They aren't.  It was taken during the first public reveal.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Feb 24, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> what it is might be a good start.....
> 
> the people look like cgi




They aren't though.That is a real pic of the XB-70. It was cancelled in 1969 after only two were built.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

watch this


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 24, 2015)

The fact that the thing fired right up after all this time is a testament to how things were built "in the old days." If it were built today it would need to be completely scrapped. I can't wait to see the upgraded version. ISIS should be surrendering just from the noise it makes.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 24, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> what it is might be a good start.....
> 
> the people look like cgi


 
If my memory serves me correctly, that was the XB-70 Valkyrie, which was ultimately not adopted by the USAF in the mid-60's.  It was developed to be a high speed deep bomber travelling at Mach 3(+).  It was dropped when the USAF decided fast, low-level bombing was the future, because of high altitude surface to air missiles.  This change then led to the B-1 program.

Great B-1 flight video here (rolls, loops and fast fly-bys):


----------



## Tallencor (Feb 24, 2015)

Such a cool thread. The idea of reconditioning an old warplane is like working on a hot rod. That first drive(flight) would be epic. I get why they do this.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

The World at War is considered to be a definitive guide to WW 2

i have linked to bombers






have a trawl through the others, you may not have seen any of these before and they are very interesting and informative. Archive stuff.


http://www.dailymotion.com/gb/relat...2pys7daa1-S.SUGG.RT.CF30.MT.A.C.CF259-07m9ywh


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 24, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> And they thought they had to invade other countries looking for weapons of mass destruction, when their backyard is full of them.



you are incorrect.

Unless you plan to kamikazi these into big buildings then fair enough, but then again ANY big commercial passenger jet or plane could do that so that doesnt count - on top of that, i doubt you'll kill as many people as a real WMD. but people will die and people will get hurt but it will do nothing but piss the country off rather then have it look like a barren wasteland like japan after Hiroshima with half or 1/4 of their population completely wiped off the planet.

It can NEVER be considered a WMD on its own as its merely a tool or a _'vessel'_ that carries the payload to its designated target before the destruction begins.

People arent born as killers - its the society that makes them that way by giving them the tools mentally and possibly physically to carry out their tasks


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2015)

It should be noted that B-52 was principally designed to deliver nuclear weapons to Russia.  I believe they carried four each and as a function of mutually assured destruction (MAD), they all knew when they took off where they need to be dropped should the call come.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

The V Bomber Force was the nickname given to Britain’s three bombers during theCold War that were capable of delivering nuclear bombs and formed part of Britain's nuclear deterrent. The V Bomber Force was made up of the Vickers Valiant, the Avro Vulcan and the Handley Page Victor

Valiant













Vulcan













Victor














more here
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/v_bomber_force.htm

Very good vid


----------



## Athlonite (Feb 24, 2015)

Coming to an ISIS hideout soon


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2015)

Never seen the Victor.  That's a crazy looking bomber.  From the front, it almost looks like a wannabe flying wing.


----------



## VulkanBros (Feb 24, 2015)

erocker said:


> Plus, look at that cockpit! All analog baby!



Yea - no EMP can harm this baby


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 24, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The V Bomber Force was the nickname given to Britain’s three bombers during theCold War that were capable of delivering nuclear bombs and formed part of Britain's nuclear deterrent. The V Bomber Force was made up of the Vickers Valiant, the Avro Vulcan and the Handley Page Victor
> 
> Valiant
> 
> ...



Its pretty safe to say - If Russia were to ever roll on the UK, we wouldn't stand a chance.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Never seen the Victor.  That's a crazy looking bomber.  From the front, it almost looks like a wannabe flying wing.



Its a beauiful weapon of war.     

Vulcans were used in the falklands campaign. i was 16 and the ranges near my home were used as a training ground before and during the war.   The Epynt range in Mid Wales.
Vulcans would regularly, sometimes 2 or 3 at a time would fly through our valley.
You could hear the beasts coming, i can remember lying down and looking up in to the open bomb bay doors.   Magic

i dont recall ever seeing a Valiant or Victor though.







FreedomEclipse said:


> Its pretty safe to say - If Russia were to ever roll on the UK, we wouldn't stand a chance.



Sorry, thats nonsense.

Our American friends are pulling out of RAF Lakenheath and taking their strategic bombers with them. NATO doesnt need a strike force based in the UK. SUBS and aircraft carriers are the way to go.

I believe we are safe, i also believe Tony Blair should be tried as a war criminal after the WMD fiasco, but thats a different story on a different website.


Coincidentally UK SUBS was the name of a punk band in the 80's... i loved them, try this


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 24, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Sorry, thats nonsense.
> 
> Our american friends are pulling out of RAF Lakenheath and taking their strategic bombers with them. NATO doesnt need a strike force based in the UK.
> I believe we are safe, i also believe Tony Blair should be tried as a war criminal after the WMD fiasco, but thats a different story on a different website.



Well for starters, Our military has suffered to many budget cuts and there have been a lot of service personnel that have been laid off.

Just because the US has pulled out their guys from the UK leaving a few bases where the RAF can now operate from doesn't mean we automatically have the upper hand. It is my strong belief that the UK lacks the hardware/equipment needed to really put up a strong defence due to those budget cuts.

We have the support of the UN & also Nato - but have you heard how close russian bombers are flying to the UK? we have the means to knock them out of the sky, but against a full out assault I dont think the UK would be able to hold its own. and it would have to do that while the politicians do their thing of speaking out and looking down on nations that attack other nations before _'real'_ help would arrive. 


Though... I might have been reading too many fictional novels.....


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Well for starters, Our military has suffered to many budget cuts and there have been a lot of service personnel that have been laid off.
> 
> Just because the US has pulled out their guys from the UK leaving a few bases where the RAF can now operate from doesn't mean we automatically have the upper hand. It is my strong belief that the UK lacks the hardware/equipment needed to really put up a strong defence due to those budget cuts.
> 
> ...




I dont agree with anything you are saying........ and its a pointless argument  anyway.   



lets get back to brilliant aircraft   only the US navy operate the Harrier nowadays















this is good
http://www.space.com/17091-hypersonic-waverider-how-the-usaf-x-51a-scramjet-works-video.html


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 24, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I dont agree with anything you are saying........ and its a pointless argument  anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> lets get back to brilliant aircraft   only the US navy operate the Harrier nowadays


 
Actually, the Marines.   But...since they are technically under the US Navy, I'll give it to you!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2015)

Harrier is slated to be replaced by the JSF (F-35) pretty much everywhere.  Because pictures, picture:


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

Im loving this thread.......and that pic is just superb 











Ever heard of "ground effect"? ...............check this monster


----------



## REAYTH (Feb 24, 2015)

First off Mailman asked me to say he's having a nervous breakdown not being able to post in this thread. Second if the UK were EVER attacked by Russia you can bet the queens crown the US would be their to curb stomp the Russians back to their boarders. Never underestimate an Americans will to fight. We may not do much else but, yall gotta admit we have our fighting game tight. Our soldiers are truly modern day legionaries.

Plus we got all the cool toys! F-22 anyone?






DA SEX!


----------



## ne6togadno (Feb 24, 2015)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

A 10     used to see these a lot








Someone once told me that the recoil from its' Gatlings would slow the aircraft almost to a stall










@ne6togadno   that SU 47 is unbelievable, it almost looks back to front.


just found this....had to stick it on


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Someone once told me that the recoil from its' Gatlings would slow the aircraft almost to a stall


It runs out of ammo long before then.  The A-10 was literally built around the GAU-8 Avenger.  Heh, never saw this photo before:


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2015)

On 28 June 2012, the A-10 became the first aircraft to fly using a new fuel blend derived from alcohol; known as ATJ (Alcohol-to-Jet), the fuel is cellulousic-based that can be derived using wood, paper, grass, or any cell-based material, and are fermented into alcohols before being hydro-processed into aviation fuel... 


ACE..........chaos with a conscience.


----------



## Iceni (Feb 25, 2015)

VulkanBros said:


> Cut the crap - give us the SR-71 "BlackBird" again.....coolest plane ...ever...fact...



I saw one of those in flight at Lakenheath in 1988 at an airshow. Beast of an aircraft.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

@FreedomEclipse...............i am still not frightened by Putin the nutcase.

General-lieutenant Anatoly Zhikharev, commander of Russian long distance military aviation, insists bomber flights near to British airspace will remain at a high level throughout 2015







They also have the worlds fastest nuclear bomber











Anyone heard of Concordski?










one crashed at an airshow










*Tu-144 Charger V's Concorde

*
Tupolev built the Tu-144 airliner, which looked to some like a close copy of the Anglo-French Concorde SST. The TU-144 made its maiden flight on 31 December 1968 - two months before Concorde. Some people called the Tu-144 a "Concordski." The intense competition between the programs was said to have bred industrial espionage among the factions and created private spy programs. It was rumored that the Russians had stolen plans for the Concorde. The Concordski had some individual characteristics that were superficially similar to the Concorde, but the similarities were quite superficial, and bore no witness to espionage.

To the un-initiated the Concordski looked almost like a twin of the Concorde with its ant-eater nose and swept-back delta wings. Also like the Concorde, the Tu-144 had a small cabin with narrow aisles and elbow-to-elbow seating. But it carried a maximum of 140 passengers the Concorde carried only 100. When Concordski turned up for the 1973 Paris Airshow she seemed to look even more like Concorde, because she was redesigned. The wings were more pulled back like the wings of Concorde. The engines had been moved outwards and she had two ear flaps otherwise known as Canards.

It is interesting to compare the origins and destinies of Tu-144 and "Concorde" - the machines that are close by purposes, design approaches and time of building. First of all it should be noted that "Concorde" was designed mainly for supersonic flights over uninhabited ocean spaces - the main purpose was flights between Europe and America. It was the reason for selecting lowere altitudes of crusing supersonic flight which resulted in smaller wing area, smaller takeoff weight, smaller demanded cruising thrust of the powerplant and Specific Fuel Consumption. Tu-144 had to flight mainly over land which lead to higher flight altitudes and respectively increase of parameters and demanded thrust of the powerplant.

It should be added that the engines were less perfect (by specific parameters the engines of Tu-144 aircraft were brought close to "Olympus" only in their last modification). All these negative initial data were compensated in the course of development of the project by high aerodynamic cleanness of Tu-144 which was achieved by making the design more complicated and by lowering maintainability of the aircraft. Quantity of production Tu-144s and "Concorde" was approximately the same.

But opposite to Tu-144 aircraft the English-French SST were in operation substantially till early 90-s. In 1986 ticket price for London-New-York flight made $2,745. It was affordable only for very prosperous people for whom formulae "times is money" is the main credo. There are such people in West and for them flights by "Concorde" are natural saving of time and money. It is confirmed by total flying time of "Concorde" in 1989 equal to 325,000 hours.

Thus the "Concorde" program was more commercial and prestigious to some extent in comparison with Americans. In the USSR there were no people for whom time could turn to money, therefore the natural market of services which could be satisfied by Tu-144s just did not exist. So the aircraft was notoriously unprofitable. Thus from one hand - heroic efforts of Tupolev Design Bureau and other aviation organizations on Tu-144 aircraft development and from the other hand - initial non-professional enthusiasm followed by hamper from Aeroflot side.

The touchdown of the last Concorde at Filton, England, in November 2003, was the first time in human history that progress in travel time had been reversed. Up to that moment the speed of transport had steadily increased with every technological step since humans began riding on horseback.


----------



## RCoon (Feb 25, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It runs out of ammo long before then.  The A-10 was literally built around the GAU-8 Avenger.  Heh, never saw this photo before:



Isn't the russian Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-30 capable of firing off more rounds?
XKCD said if you attached 2 of those things to the back of a plane, you could make it jump entire mountains without engines. (Of course the plane would be torn to pieces)


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Isn't the russian Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-30 capable of firing off more rounds?
> XKCD said if you attached 2 of those things to the back of a plane, you could make it jump entire mountains without engines. (Of course the plane would be torn to pieces)




this is from that wiki link
On the Mikoyan MiG-27 the Gsh-6-30 had to be mounted obliquely to absorb recoil. The gun was noted for its high (often uncomfortable) vibration and extreme noise. The airframe vibration led to fatigue cracks in fuel tanks, numerous radio and avionics failures, the necessity of using runways with floodlights for night flights (as the landing lights would often be destroyed), tearing or jamming of the forward landing gear doors (leading to at least three crash landings), cracking of the reflector gunsight, an accidental jettisoning of the cockpit canopy and at least one case of the instrument panel falling off in flight. The weapons also dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200 meter radius from the impact center, including the aircraft firing.

Talk about lethal  !!!   you can even shoot yourself down with it and all your mates. 


here we go











A 10 's  this is really good


----------



## Tallencor (Feb 25, 2015)

Now all I want to do is download Hawx and Ace Combat.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

I want to do this












in one of these
NASA’s Super Guppy


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 25, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Isn't the russian Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-30 capable of firing off more rounds?
> XKCD said if you attached 2 of those things to the back of a plane, you could make it jump entire mountains without engines. (Of course the plane would be torn to pieces)


Well, yes and no.  Yes, the GSH 6 30 has 8000 RPM compared to the GAU-8 of 3900-4200 RPM but the only aircraft I know of that received the GSH 6 30 was the MiG-27 which carried only 210 rounds.  The A-10 not only fires longer, heavier uranium tipped round with about 20-25% more muzzle velocity, it also carries >1000 rounds so it can fire 4-8 times longer due to the lower fire rate. 

Again, ammo.  A-10 carries a lot more than the MiG-27 but even the A-10 runs out in 17 seconds of continuous firing.  If the ammo had zero weight and was in unlimited supply, yes, both guns could stop their respective aircrafts because the combined recoil force is greater than the forward engine thrust.




CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> this is from that wiki link
> On the Mikoyan MiG-27 the Gsh-6-30 had to be mounted obliquely to absorb recoil. The gun was noted for its high (often uncomfortable) vibration and extreme noise. The airframe vibration led to fatigue cracks in fuel tanks, numerous radio and avionics failures, the necessity of using runways with floodlights for night flights (as the landing lights would often be destroyed), tearing or jamming of the forward landing gear doors (leading to at least three crash landings), cracking of the reflector gunsight, an accidental jettisoning of the cockpit canopy and at least one case of the instrument panel falling off in flight. The weapons also dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200 meter radius from the impact center, including the aircraft firing.


Yup, another Russian fail.  They saw the effectiveness of the A-10 and wanted to duplicate it.  They didn't take in to account all of the things Fairchild did (redundant controls, the aircraft does not eject any rounds because it returns them to the drum, the vibration, the engines are placed far apart so if it gets shot at and explodes it won't take the other engine, etc.).  The A-10 was meant to get into a fist fight; the MiG-27 isn't.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 25, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A-10 carries a lot more than the MiG-27 but even the A-10 runs out in 17 seconds of continuous firing.


 
Having seen them on a number of gunnery ranges, the A-10 pilots have the 1-2 second "burrrp" of firing down to a science!  That's all that's necessary to demolish an armored target.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

*Specifications (GSh-30-2)[edit]*

*Manufacturer*: KBP Instrument Design Bureau
*Type*: dual-barrel automatic cannon
*Caliber*: 30x165 mm, electrically primed
*Operation*: Gast principle
*Length*: 2044 mm
*Barrel Length*: 1500 mm
*Weight (complete)*: 105 kg
*Rate of fire*: 3000 rpm[_citation needed_]
*Muzzle velocity*: 870 m/s
*Projectile weight*: 390 g
*Mounting platforms*: Sukhoi Su-25 "Frogfoot"
*Specifications (GSh-30-2K)[edit]*

*Manufacturer*: KBP Instrument Design Bureau
*Type*: dual-barrel automatic cannon
*Caliber*: 30x165 mm
*Operation*: Gast principle
*Length*: 2944 mm
*Barrel Length*: 2400 mm
*Weight (complete)*: 126 kg
*Rate of fire*: 300 rpm (low) - 2,000~2,600 rpm (high)
*Muzzle velocity*: 940 m/s
*Projectile weight*: 390 g
*Mounting platforms*: Mil Mi-24P "Hind"
GAU-8 Avenger



The GAU-8/A Avenger's barrel and breech assembly
(ammunition drum off right edge of photo).
TypeGatling-type autocannon
Place of originUnited States
Service history
In service1977–present
Used by
United States Air Force(Avenger)

Various navies(Goalkeeper)
Production history
ManufacturerGeneral Electric
Number builtApprox. 715[1]
VariantsGAU-12/U Equalizer
GAU-13/A
Specifications
Weight619.5 lb (281 kg)
Length
19 ft 10.5 in (6.06 m) (total system)

112.28 in (2.85 m) (gun only)
Barrel length90.5 in (2.30 m)
Width17.2 in (0.437 m) (barrel only)
Cartridge30 × 173 mm
Caliber30 mm caliber
Barrels7-barrel (progressive RH parabolic twist, 14 grooves)
ActionElectrically controlled, Hydraulic-Driven
Rate of fire4,200 rpm (variable)
Muzzle velocity3,500 ft/s (1,070 m/s)
Effective firing range4,000 feet (1,220 m)
Maximum firing rangeOver 12,000 feet (3,660 m)
Feed systemLinkless feed system



@rtwjunkie 's description of "burping" is spot on, i used to hear them as a boy

on this range in Mid Wales


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 25, 2015)

Oh, forgot about the HIND.  Su-25SM too which has a 250 round magazine (slightly larger) but it's fastest firerate is 12.5 rounds per minute compared to the A-10s 70.  Note: max rate of fire for Su-25SM seems to be unknown.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> both guns could stop their respective aircrafts because the combined recoil force is greater than the forward engine thrust.





F



[QUOTE="CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Someone once told me that the recoil from its' Gatlings would slow the aircraft almost to a stall




So i was right then ?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 25, 2015)

No, because ammo rounds have mass and their supply is limited.  You're right in a fantasy world where IDKFA works, wrong in the real world.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

*Tupolev TB-3  * Russias WW2 work horse

















This one is amazing....



















@FordGT90Concept   SU 255 rate of fire

The aircraft's twin-barrel gun, the 30mm AO-17A, is installed in the underside of the fuselage on the port side. The gun is armed with 250 rounds of ammunition and is capable of firing at a burst rate of 3,000 rounds a minute. SPPU-22 gun pods can also be installed on the underwing pylons. The pods carry the GSh-23 23mm twin-barrel guns, each with 260 rounds of ammunition.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/


----------



## erixx (Feb 25, 2015)

just wow! thanks all for this thread


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

B 24 Liberator





try this............ Pathe news reels were shown during the interval in cinemas before people had tvs


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 25, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The aircraft's twin-barrel gun, the 30mm AO-17A, is installed in the underside of the fuselage on the port side. The gun is armed with 250 rounds of ammunition and is capable of firing at a burst rate of 3,000 rounds a minute. SPPU-22 gun pods can also be installed on the underwing pylons. The pods carry the GSh-23 23mm twin-barrel guns, each with 260 rounds of ammunition.
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/


That's not a Gatling gun.  It's literally two barrels that actuate each other (exhaust from one charges two which fires charging one and so on).  Everywhere I see, that 3000 RPM is in doubt because Gatling guns spread that energy out over many barrels (GAU-8 is 7, Yak-B in HIND has 4) where the GSh-30-2 only has 2.  Actually, the only Gatling gun on aircraft in Russia is the small one found on the HIND.  The rest are one or two barrel.

The original Gast gun had 1500 RPM and it was firing tiny bullets compared to the GSh-30-2 is 30mm.  I doubt the peak firerate is higher than 1000 RPM.  The 810 RPM figure (13.5 RPS) sounds accurate.


----------



## Norton (Feb 25, 2015)

This thread cannot continue without this beauty showing up:






*NOW it's a party!*


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

Interesting size comparison.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 25, 2015)

Norton said:


> This thread cannot continue without this beauty showing up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was always more partial towards one of these.






but they both served in different theaters till later on where the P-51s were more widely produced and made their way to the pacific. Fighting Japs was always a P-38 or P-40's thang


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Feb 25, 2015)

VulkanBros said:


> Cut the crap - give us the SR-71 "BlackBird" again.....coolest plane ...ever...fact...




I agree ,But the fact is it would cost more to restore them then it did to build them,Supersonic jets can be used a certain amount of time due to them needing the air  cabin pressure,And these things flew just about at the edge of space,What i mean by cabin pressure ,is that every time they get filled and empty it is like squeezing a pop can . Now for the b52`s yep mobile surveillance and if they put them 170mm cannons the c-130`s have (maybe four on each side look out ISIS your in for a hell storm of lead lol Or use the MOAB maybe 4 each cargo ,(Mother Of All Bombs) that would surely make them crawl out of the goats ass they hide in

Oh if any of guys want to play around with these old planes try here http://live.warthunder.com/feed/camouflages/  they just released the B29 in game   And all you p-38 p-51 will be happy   free game and worth the time to download. Here is the English download http://warthunder.com/en/register-for-free?lang=en


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 25, 2015)

Here's something I never seen before.  It's a concept from the LAPCAT project: a mach 5-8 hypersonic passenger aircraft:








H82LUZ73 said:


> I agree ,But the fact is it would cost more to restore them then it did to build them,Supersonic jets can be used a certain amount of time due to them needing the air  cabin pressure,And these things flew just about at the edge of space,What i mean by cabin pressure ,is that every time they get filled and empty it is like squeezing a pop can . Now for the b52`s yep mobile surveillance and if they put them 170mm cannons the c-130`s have (maybe four on each side look out ISIS your in for a hell storm of lead lol Or use the MOAB maybe 4 each cargo ,(Mother Of All Bombs) that would surely make them crawl out of the goats ass they hide in


The cabin was not pressurized.  Their flight suits were.  They plugged their flight suits into the SR-71 for oxygen and pressure.

C-130s never had 170mm cannons.  A single 105mm cannon is found port-side on these variations of the AC-130:
AC-130E Pave Aegis (retired)
AC-130H Spectre
AC-130J Ghostrider
AC-130U Spooky II
AC-130W Stinger II

MOABs can't be dropped by the B-52 because they're parachute deployed out the rear of cargo planes.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

Top view of B-1B in-flight.  first envisioned in the 1960s as a supersonic bomber with Mach 2 speed, and sufficient range and payload to replace the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. It was developed into the B-1B, primarily a low-level penetrator with long range and Mach 1.25 speed capability at high altitude.
























turn this up loud,,,,,they used to fly over my house


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 25, 2015)

Full list of active service aircraft here (all branches):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft

U-2 is still in service as the "Dragon Lady" 

There's a wide variety of cargo and passenger aircraft too.

USA has six models of USSR aircraft.   One, a HIND, which was acquired from Germany, was retired.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning


----------



## ne6togadno (Feb 25, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Full list of active service aircraft here (all branches):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft
> 
> U-2 is still in service as the "Dragon Lady"
> ...


usa bought from Moldova squadron of MiG 29 back in the end of 90s and used em for training of personal in air fights with "possible enemy". 1000% they made evaluations too.
russians wasnt happy about whole story at all.


----------



## REAYTH (Feb 25, 2015)

Norton said:


> This thread cannot continue without this beauty showing up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mailman asked me to post......"No its only a party if this bad boy shows up...."










3:40 where the magic begins....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 25, 2015)

I think the P-38 is my favorite aircraft to come out of the WWII Pacific theater.  The P-51 would be my favorite in the Atlantic theater.  It's a shame the P-51 showed up late.


----------



## REAYTH (Feb 25, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think the P-38 is my favorite aircraft to come out of the WWII Pacific theater.  The P-51 would be my favorite in the Atlantic theater.  It's a shame the P-51 showed up late.


It was in the European front also. Germans called it the "Fork Tailed Devil" for a reason.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 25, 2015)

REAYTH said:


> Mailman asked me to post......"No its only a party if this bad boy shows up...."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I posted a picture of a P-38 but a mod or someone made it into a size of a thumbnail


----------



## REAYTH (Feb 25, 2015)

FreedomEclipse said:


> I posted a picture of a P-38 but a mod or someone made it into a size of a thumbnail


You have to invoke the name Mailman when you want to do something obnoxious on TPU. Otherwise the mods get confused.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

Messerschmitt Me 262






The *Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe* (English: "Swallow") of Nazi Germany was the world's first operational jet-poweredfighter aircraft.[5] Design work started before World War II began, but engine problems and top-level interference kept the aircraft from operational status with the Luftwaffe until mid-1944. Heavily armed, it was faster than anyAllied fighter, including the British jet-powered Gloster Meteor.[6] One of the most advanced aviation designs in operational use during World War II,[7] the Me 262 was used in a variety of roles, including light bomber, reconnaissance, and even experimental night fighter versions


----------



## REAYTH (Feb 25, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Messerschmitt Me 262
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most of their losses were on the runway refueling, not in combat. They love to leave out the "A fuel/B fuel" flaw when talking about the 262. The two fuels it used were so volatile that the trucks could not be on the runway at the same time. The ME for all its glory was fatally flawed in execution. Between it and the Tiger tanks they were a testament to German engineering. Both in innovation and over designing basic things.






Americans, Russians and even the British to some extent learned real fast that it was better to be able to repair something in the field than to ship it back to the factory. When a Sherman broke down you would replace the entire engine in the field within TWO HOURS! When a Tiger went down it had to be shipped back to the factory for repair. Germans built great things back then.......great complicated things that there were better solutions for.

Japan was the complete opposite of everyone. They built everything to be destroyed. There was no repair. You just used it until you died. lol With their metal shortage it was a stupid strategy but, then again they were following a "living god" into oblivion. At least Hitler had meth as an excuse. Hirohito was just an asshole.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2015)

Sorry Mates, i'm getting carried away again,.........          ..



Gloster Meteor







The *Gloster Meteor* was the first British jet fighter and the Allies'first operational jet aircraft during the Second World War. The Meteor's development was heavily reliant on its ground-breakingturbojet engines, pioneered by Sir Frank Whittle and his company,Power Jets Ltd. Development of the aircraft itself began in 1940, although work on the engines had been underway since 1936. The Meteor first flew in 1943 and commenced operations on 27 July 1944 with No. 616 Squadron RAF. Nicknamed the "Meatbox", the Meteor was not a sophisticated aircraft in terms of its aerodynamics, but proved to be a successful combat fighter.

Several major variants of the Meteor incorporated technological advances during the 1940s and 1950s. Thousands of Meteors were built to fly with the RAF and other air forces and remained in use for several decades. The Meteor saw limited action in the Second World War. Meteors of the Royal Australian Air Force(RAAF) provided a significant contribution in the Korean War. Several other operators such as Argentina, Egypt and Israel flew Meteors in later regional conflicts. Specialised variants of the Meteor were developed for use in photo-reconnaissance and as night fighters.

The Meteor was also used for research and development purposes and to break several aviation records. On 7 November 1945, the first official air speed record by a jet aircraft was set by a Meteor F.3 of 606 miles per hour (975 km/h). In 1946, this record was broken when a Meteor F.4 reached a speed of 616 mph (991 km/h).
















Pathe newsreel again





















I had no idea there were so many wartime jet projects..........look at this lot ive stuck in a few picks the wiki links will take you to the others f you are interested


Arado Ar 234[1][2]



GermanyJune 1943August 1944250+first jet bomber











Bell P-59 Airacomet[3]



USOctober 1942n/a66first USAAF jet to fly; used as trainer,
production cancelled
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






Bell XP-83[4]



USFebruary 1945n/a2cancelled long-range escort fighter







Caproni Campini N.1[5]



ItalyAugust 1940n/a2first Italian thermojet






Consolidated Vultee XP-81[6]



USFebruary 1945n/a2cancelled mixed power fighter

de Havilland Vampire F.1[7]



UKSeptember 1943March 1946244postwar production














Douglas XBTD-2 Destroyer[8][9]



USMay 1944n/a2cancelled mixed power torpedo bomber

Douglas XB-43 Jetmaster



USMay 1946n/a2cancelled jet bomber[notes 1]

Fieseler Fi 103R Reichenberg[10]



GermanySeptember 1944n/a300ready for operations late 1944, not used[notes 2]






Gloster E.28/39[11]



UKApril 1941n/a2Jet engine testbed and firstAllied jet to fly.

Gloster Meteor F.1 & F.3[12]



UKMarch 1943July 1944250First operational Allied jet fighter.

Heinkel He 162[13]



GermanyDecember 1944February 1945238+lightweight interceptor

Heinkel He 178



GermanyAugust 1939n/a2Jet engine testbed and first jet aircraft to fly

Heinkel He 280



GermanySeptember 1940n/a9first jet fighter to fly, cancelled

Henschel Hs 132



Germanyn/an/a4dive bomber, captured before flown

Horten Ho 229[14]



GermanyMarch 1944n/a3fighter/bomber, first jet powered flying wing


















Junkers Ju 287 V-1/2/3[15]



GermanyAugust 1944n/a1multi-engine bomber







Lockheed P-80A Shooting Star[16]



USJanuary 1944January 1945361first operational USAAF jet fighter

McDonnell FD Phantom[17][18]



USJanuary 1945July 194762postwar production,
designation changed April 1946 to FH.

Messerschmitt Me 262[19]



GermanyJuly 1942June 19441,433first operational jet fighter

Messerschmitt Me 328



Germany1944 (early)n/a9cancelled pulse jet fighter/bomber

Messerschmitt P.1101[20]



Germanyn/an/a2captured before flown

Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250 & MiG-13[21]



USSRMarch 1945n/a28mixed power thermojet fighter

Nakajima Kikka[22]



JapanAugust 1945n/a1jet interceptor, similar but smaller than Me 262[notes 3]

Northrop XP-79B[23]



USSeptember 1945n/a1cancelled after crash

Ryan FR Fireball[24]



USJune 1944March 194566US Navy mixed power, never saw combat

Sud-Ouest Triton



FranceNovember 1946n/a5developed while France under German occupation







Sukhoi Su-5[25]



USSRApril 1945n/a1cancelled mixed power thermojet fighter






Yokosuka MXY7 Model 22



JapanJuly 1945n/a50kamikaze thermojet version deployed but not used[notes 4]


----------



## ne6togadno (Feb 26, 2015)

REAYTH said:


> Americans, Russians and even the British to some extent learned real fast that it was better to be able to repair something in the field than to ship it back to the factory. When a Sherman broke down you would replace the entire engine in the field within TWO HOURS! When a Tiger went down it had to be shipped back to the factory for repair. Germans built great things back then.......great complicated things that there were better solutions for.


problem with german designs was that they was made for high quality materials and strict working conditions but due to lack of natural resourses industry couldnt provide materials with needed quality
lack of latex left german engines and gearboxes with low quality gaskets. german tank engines suffered from oil leaks and brake downs due to suboptimal working conditions.
they lost more tigers due to mechanical brake downs than from enemy fire.
their designs wasnt good for big scale and fast manufacturing. they built 1355 tigers vs tens of thousends t-34 only from russians
but it isnt accidental that usa's rocket and sonic flight programs are based on german developments and designs. russians also took tons of documantation and manufacturing equipment too together with a lot engineers.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_141





http://www.luft46.com/bv/bvp111.html





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_P.208





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_P.211

man those gusy from blohm&voss were absolutely crazy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_aircraft_projects,_1939–45#Blohm_.26_Voss
when you look at this list you realise that since 2nd ww nothing new has been desinged. all we have now is just refinements of german experimental tech.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 26, 2015)

*Fliegende Panzerfaust*















The _Fliegende Panzerfaust_ was a rocket-powered design meeting the demand for a low-cost aircraft in a very-short-range interceptor role. It was a parasite aircraft meant to be towed behind a Messerschmitt Bf 109G for which it had a special long nose.[2] Powered by six Schmidding SG 34 rocket engines, three on each side on the rear half of the fuselage, the _Fliegende Panzerfaust_ was a small plane with a v-tail, a wingspan of 4.5 m and a length of 6.0 m.[3]

This Zeppelin-built aircraft would have been released upon reaching combat altitude above the enemy bomber fleet. Shortly before contact with the combat box below it would ignite its six solid-fuel rocket engines, attacking the target bomber by firing two 73 mm RZ 65 air-to-air missiles at an extremely close range.[4] The front half of the aircraft which had the pilot lying in a prone position in the cockpit would then split from the other half. Both parts would land separately with parachutes, being later retrieved and reused.[5] Owing to the extreme risks for the pilot inherent in its operation this aircraft is sometimes referred to as a suicide weapon


*Rheinmetall-Borsig  RZ  65*
*




Specifications
Type:  Air - to - Ground  Rocket
Designed:  1937
Manufacturer:  Rheinmetall-Borsig
Number  Built:  ???
Diameter:  73  mm
Weight:  2.78  kg
Length:  2.62  m
Range:  250  m*


----------



## REAYTH (Feb 26, 2015)

ne6togadno said:


> problem with german designs was that they was made for high quality materials and strict working conditions but due to lack of natural resourses industry couldnt provide materials with needed quality
> lack of latex left german engines and gearboxes with low quality gaskets. german tank engines suffered from oil leaks and brake downs due to suboptimal working conditions.
> they lost more tigers due to mechanical brake downs than from enemy fire.
> their designs wasnt good for big scale and fast manufacturing. they built 1355 tigers vs tens of thousends t-34 only from russians
> ...


I never said they were not ahead of the curb. I just said they over engineered just about everything. Not to derail the thread but one of the best things the Germans built during WW2 was the MG42. That machinery is a work of art. Its design IMHO is right up there with the M1911.

The Tigers, ME's everything else was to damn complicated for a large scale war. Especially when you were up against an industrial juggernaut like the US with unlimited natural resources, factories and rednecks with an itchy trigger fingers. That and they go off and INVADE RUSSIA which is the stupidest thing ANY nation can do. Meh Hitler was a meth head so screw it. lol


----------



## ne6togadno (Feb 26, 2015)

REAYTH said:


> I never said they were not ahead of the curb. I just said they over engineered just about everything. Not to derail the thread but one of the best things the Germans built during WW2 was the MG42. That machinery is a work of art. Its design IMHO is right up there with the M1911.


complitely agre with this.


REAYTH said:


> The Tigers, ME's everything else was to damn complicated for a large scale war. Especially when you were up against an industrial juggernaut like the US with unlimited natural resources, factories and rednecks with an itchy trigger fingers. That and they go off and INVADE RUSSIA which is the stupidest thing ANY nation can do. Meh Hitler was a meth head so screw it. lol


his war with russia was more try for preventive strike then something he realy wanted.
since 1938 germany and ussr were allies and ussr was suppling germany with rare resourses, fuels, food etc. but stalin had plans to wait till germnay destroy "western imperialistic countries (france&england)" and then attack and conquare weakened and ruined europe so he can "establish communism in europe first and later in the whole world". hitler knew about this plans and he knew he cant withstand such attack so he dicided to strike first hopping that he could crush russia with blizkrieg as he did before with france and rest of the western europe and he almost did it. stalin was about to surrender but snow felt and stopped german advance to moskow. this gave time to russians to finish transition of their manufacturing power to siberia and to start tank and plain production again.
there is 4 episods documentary about but it is in russian. i will try to find version with english subtitles and will post it later


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 26, 2015)

@ne6togadno
@REAYTH






you will both enjoy this
This is a very good video, i cant recommend it highly enough. You dont see stuff like this on tv.








       .


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 26, 2015)

Look what i just remembered i had.

If youve come this far in this thread this may really interest you.


My Dad grew up during WW 2,. His home town was Swansea which was bombed.
It  was important that people including children could identify different aircraft so stuff like this was produced. These are 70 + years old

I will try and zoom the rules of the game    








I have got 53 cards  

4 suits of 13 cards each and 1 joker. One card has got a corner missing   apart from that they are in good nick. Shame mind.....one corner on one card.


----------



## ne6togadno (Feb 26, 2015)

cant find the films with english subs :/


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 27, 2015)

Still on the aviation theme...........these will keep me busy for a bit.
Again  70 + years old, my Dad used to play with them.
He always was a bit heavy handed !!

Restoration has fallen on me.





All die cast Dinkys....made of tin i think.


L to R

The King's areoplane
Airspeed Envoy
Mercury Seaplane
Hurricane
Spitfire
no identifying details on the tiny one even with my jewellers loupe


and the broken one is another Envoy, i have already fixed some of the Mercury.


Cool as a badgers fridge !!!!!!






just found this on line   ---------sold for £ 1,200.00     7 years ago.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 27, 2015)

@ne6togadno 

for you


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 27, 2015)

Lockheed Martin Have Blue:










The first metallic aircraft designed to have a greatly reduced RADAR signature.  It's design was translated into the F-117 Nighthawk "Wobblin' Goblin" bomber:




It was designated "F" for Fighter so that enemies wouldn't try to engage it with aircraft.  It had no anti-air capabilities.  They have now been retired, replaced by the B-2 Spirit which has a much larger payload, greater endurance, and an even smaller RADAR cross-section despite being huge by comparison.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 27, 2015)

@FordGT90Concept  theres a pic missing from your post can you try again please pal. i dont know much about the US stuff.

F*** im so glad i asked you.... i had a feeling it would be a good one.





F117 crash



F117 stealth jet fighter crash on September 14 1997 in Essex, Maryland at air show.Listen to the crowds reaction and what the announcer says to try to keep the show going.It did not work! The show ended when the jet crashed into a near by house and burst into flames. The military came and would not allow anyone to leave or enter the small Bowleys Quarters neighborhood. If you listen you can hear a small child say " Holy Sh#t ", right after the wing falls off the stealth fighter.


Skip to 1.00 if you are short of time

















look what i found






A pair of specially painted F-117 Nighthawks fly off from their last refueling by the Ohio National Guard's 121st Air Refueling Wing. The F-117s were retired March 11 in a farewell ceremony at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 27, 2015)

Never seen that before.  WTF happened?  Aircraft aren't supposed to lose a wing mid-flight, especially without an apparent collision. 



			
				Dmitri Kozlowsky said:
			
		

> I remember this mishap. The unclassified section of report placed blame on maintenance *failiure to properly reatach the wing after a maintainence cycle. Either the bolts were missing or they were improperly installed*. However, two years later USAF retired F-117 and placed them all in storage, except two examples for systems testing. Unlike previous combat airframes, F-117 was not passed to USAFRES or Air National Guard units. Airframes went into controlled environment storage in Holloman and Davis-Monthan AFBs.


Bet this crash had a lot to do with their early retirement.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 27, 2015)

I can remember it happening and this










i was working at Heathrow at the time, terminal 4 to be exact....Concordes home.

They were all withdrawn from service and refitted. By the time they went back into service a lot of the customers had been lured away by other carriers offering premier services. they may not have been so quick but they were safe.

The Concorde story is very interesting heres a brill vid










the US public hated her because she was so loud and despite a global sales tour she never really got in to the markets.   BIG shame......when we lost Concorde it was a sad day. The crowds at Heathrow were incredible, even bigger than when England won the rugby world cup in AUS.





Truly beautiful and definitely part of what makes me...me.

She could only go supersonic over the ocean but the sonic boom still rattled our windows when i was a kid   it was always between 21.10 and 21.12 every night if the wind was right.


She displayed a lot in commemorative flypasts like this


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 28, 2015)

Brilliant interactive map and article about The Boneyard.
This is very good. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ive-map-biggest-aircraft-graveyard-world.html


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 22, 2018)

Im necroing this old thread as there might be a few of you crazy fanatics (especially the yanks) who might know what im looking for or talking about....

Im looking for an old movie that i watched in my younger days, It was an old B&W movie solely about the adventure of a B-17 crew in in the pacific theater of war. I think the movie was called 'Midway' or 'Battle For Midway' -- There are possibly one or two movies that exist with the same or similar name but they arent in B&W

But the gist of the story is they were some rag tag B-17 crew that somehow ended up flying a few hundred miles to the pacific and pretty much flying around dog fighting zeros, supporting ground units from the air when Japs attacked their airfield.  After that they ended up leading a hunt for the japanese fleet and spearheading the attack when they radioed it in to their allies.

The pilots name was Buchanan or something along those lines. and he ended up getting killed after they got head-on'd by a Zero.


Im sure someone might know??


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 22, 2018)

RCoon said:


> Hard to believe America thinks they need such a blunt instrument in their fleet. I mean those things were for big wars and mass carpet bombing of massive areas. I don't think the terrorist threat really needs such a titan craft, unless America intends on "removing" the mountain the insurgents are hiding underneath with one of these things.
> 
> Glad to hear such a marvel of engineering still flies after 50 years though! Don't make 'em like they used to.


To be fair there use can be precision guided right to the doorstep and beyond, no other plane carries as much or as varied a load of death.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 22, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> To be fair there use can be precision guided right to the doorstep and beyond, no other plane carries as much or as varied a load of death.



And then theres that one thats made to carry out CAS missions like in CoD4 -- I think they call it smokey or something..


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 22, 2018)

@FreedomEclipse Would it be Air Force? Pilot’s name was Quincannon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_(film)


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 22, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> @FreedomEclipse Would it be Air Force? Pilot’s name was Quincannon.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_(film)




YESSSSSSSSS this was the one!! I swear to god it was Battle for Midway or something but thats where this B17 crew were duking it out. Absolutely far fetched as far as story goes. Good movie though... If you like propaganda stories about invincible resilient American war machines 

Now why did i have to necro thread when i could of just asked you! 


well, 2015 thread enjoy your new lease of life!



RCoon said:


> Hard to believe America thinks they need such a blunt instrument in their fleet. I mean those things were for big wars and mass carpet bombing of massive areas. I don't think the terrorist threat really needs such a titan craft, unless America intends on "removing" the mountain the insurgents are hiding underneath with one of these things.
> 
> Glad to hear such a marvel of engineering still flies after 50 years though! Don't make 'em like they used to.




Freedom comes in many shapes and sizes. They just need to find a country to share it with 

Preferably one with oil


----------



## rockit00 (Oct 23, 2018)

Nothing like the smell of freshly recovered drag chutes in the morning! Thank you very very much! Next time use your brakes.


----------



## revin (Oct 23, 2018)

@Liquid Cool
https://streamable.com/leyng

https://streamable.com/nzbj9
Seen her down in Ft Worth a few years ago, got to crawl all thru her. Amazing aircraft.
They did a stopover for 3 day's here, they were selling flight tickets, best seat was $1625

BTW the B-58 Hustler and XB-70 both help lead to the design of the B'One
B-58, XB*70, and the Mighty F-14 Tomcat are in my Top 5 of all timer's

Also the Thunderbolt II ie A10 was pretty much like it's WW2 counterpart, P-47 Thunderbolt, some time's called the JUG"
Huge 4250Radial engine, Complete Armor Bathtub ect, there is a video of a pilot that was Shocked when a ME-109 used up ALL it's ammo trying to shoot him down. The plane was shredded, then the German pilot pulled up next to him, and iirc, he even "escorted him" quite some time, then gave a salute did a wing waggle and left him and the pilot was just able to return to a base.

@FordGT90Concept  Speaking of wing and prayer...


----------

