Printable View
Which aircraft from history do you think is the toughest looking? I'm talking about aircraft which look like they would start a brawl for fun, aircraft that aren't neccessarily beutiful, just incredibly mean looking. Based on those criteria, I say...
The Douglas A1 Skyraider.
http://www.jefflewis.net/graphics/ai..._Skyraider.jpg
Yes the A1 Skyraider is a worthy aircraft for that catergory. However is it limited to only airplanes - or can we include Helicopters.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mi-24.htm
A series of photos consistenting of the multiple variants of the aircraft called Mi-24 or the HIND.
All the MIG family. Well, most of them anyway.
Ah, I love the Hind, it's so bulbous and ugly looking. If it was a person, you can tell it would steal candy from children for fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I always thought the Vought F4U Corsair looked like a bit of a beast. The huge propeller and a compact body give an impression of strength. The Phantom produced a similar effect in the jet era.
Those aren't my favorite looking aricraft though. I always thought the Spitfire, Mosquito and Mustang produced an aura of lethal grace, as does the F-18 Hornet.
Ok, I revote, and go for the Messerschmitt. See, IMO, the A1 looks mean alright, but in a brute kinda way. If it was a person it would be something like a 3rd row rugby player.
While the messer would be a man wearing a tux, black gloves and elegant manners with a gun and a easy trigger finger.
If you know what I mean.
The A-10 Warthog fully equipped and properly painted looks pretty mean and ugly. I second the F-4 Phantom, it has a great "tough" look as well.
What about the Hawker Typhoon? (sorry,I have no idea how to insert images)
I would have to say, the Cobra GunShip, F4 Phantom (even though they werent very good in Air-to-Air), A10 Warthog (fully armed, I love a full rack......of missles ~;) ), F/A-18 hornet. I would also like to say that the B52 is just a scary looking aircraft, espseacally because it carries about 12 Guided missle ( I think) AND the F22 Raptor, looks like a little ballerina in a dance, but in that belly of her is some very nice toys, that can do alot of damage. Sorry, I rambeled (sp?) I love anything that flys.
One more--- Just as another favorite plane of my, C-130 Hurcules, with or without the fire support weapons in it. (Vulcan cannon, and something else but I forget) Ok Im done now.
P-38 Lightning. The "twin-tailed devil." Awesome.
I just like the F-4 - kind of a "workhorse" or "real man" plane. Not like those sissy "hard to spot on radar" new-fangled things.
The FW-190 and Me262 are both pretty tough customers, or at least LOOK that way.
A-10s are great, too. I want one for my backyard, but my parents... don't think it will work out... financially.
I would say:
For a navy plane the F-14 Tomcat, big, fast and long armed!
For ground support the A-10, has a certain grace when unloading a belch of minigun fire.
For a prop plane the german DO-335A Arrow a push pull plane with 5 or more guns, mostly cannon and a bomb bay.
I would have to agree about the Do-335. A engine at each end equates to two tough shields at each end.
My no.1 vote goes with the A-10. Built to get down and dirty. The pilot sits in a titanium `bathtub` and it flies fine on one engine.
But honorable mention to the B58 Hustler.
http://www.dimeolas.com/B58a.jpg
http://www.dimeolas.com/B58b.jpg
at the time it flew faster and higher than everything else and was basically a nuke with some engines.
Also the F105 Thunderchief.....built as a startegic F/B it was pressed into service in Vietnam in roles it was not designed for. Was primarily used to bomb over N Vietnam and go `downtown` against the Soviet manned air defenses that were the toughest outside the Soviet Union. Respect to the men who flew these machines and the crews who kept them in the air.
http://www.dimeolas.com/thud.jpg
D
The A-10 Warthog.
Also, the Su-27/37, but this is also because of its accomplishments and endurance.
~Wiz
Another one of my favourite hard looking aircraft-
http://www.photohome.com/pictures/ai...derbolt-1a.jpg
The P-47 Thunderbolt, or 'Jug'.
The General dynamics F-111.
It has that "I'm gonna getcha!" look.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...esass/f111.bmp
Snoopy's dog house when he's the Red Baron. Simply the baddest mutha###### around!!!
Secondly the A-10. ~D
Anybody have a picture of a DO-335A, the germans only used a few and had a new version prototyped and ready to go. The great part is it could dogfight and kill any ground target out there, bomb bay must also help with drag...
I don't have an image hoster and have to get off soon so I cannot post one at the moment.
It's not the plane, it's the size of the payload ~:)
anyway,
I beleive it's the Su-37? Some Russian plane that i'm too lazy to look up. That plane looks like it can blow your a$$ up and then do it again for fun.
hardest looking planes are the F-4 Phantom "a triumph of thrust over aerodynamics" and the P-47 Thunderbolt.
Nothing else even comes close :charge:
BKS, thanks for mentioning the P-47 Thunderbolt. That was the plane I was thinking of but couldn't remember its name. That bad boy screams "go ahead, take your best shot!" at the enemy. Its an ugly plane, but then war is an ugly business.
The F7F Hellcat is another tough looking aircraft.
Its Gotta be the A-10 for me, they are just so ugly and that Gatling cannon on the front just says im gonna bust you up!
Thanks for the reminder King Edward. In the "modern" era, the A-10 is one tough cookie and its ugly look has a beauty all its own. Once I was sitting in a traffic backup in a rural Pennsylvania valley when two A-10s flew by at very low altitude down the valley. It was a thing of beauty that sent chills down my spine.
The Hind helicopter mentioned by Redleg is another good one. That is one mean helicopter that I'd probably refuse to take a shot at no matter what I was armed with simply out of fear that the only damage I'd do is to piss it off. (Side note: as I write this, the washing machine has gone into its spin cycle and it sounds an awful lot like a helicopter - run! :eeeek: )
You see either of them flying towards you and its serious brown trousers (pants for you americans) time!!!
My Dad worked on F-4's when he was in the Air Force. The only time I've seen one fly was when I was in Korea, ROK Air Force still flies them. I still remember the first time I saw, well, first heard it. I was use to the constatnt F-16's shooting off into the sky all hours of the day. I was walking to the chow hall and I heard something like a jumbo jet which was strange. So I turned around towards the flight line and saw an F-4. It was truelly a beautiful sight, then it just shot straight up and disapeared. I'll always remember that bird!!! My Dad still loves that plane to this day. i bought him a carved mohagoney model of the phantom while I was over there. Its a beauty.
The Hellcat is indeed an extremely nasty looking plane. I keep expecting it to head-butt me.Quote:
The F7F Hellcat is another tough looking aircraft.
http://www.militaryairshows.net/franck/hellcat-2.jpg
However, personally I think it's successor, the Bearcat, pips it by a nose.
http://www.watsonvilleflyin.org/images/bearcat.jpg
The design philosophy seems to have been 'put the largest possible engine into the smallest possible airframe'. It had phenomenal performance but was just too late for WWII.
some of those WW1 planes look pretty tough, if you forget the paper wings and joints held together by spit and prayer...
they have been around for ages, and some for example the German Pfalz D III or the British Sopwith series have foguth through 2 wars (if only for a very small part of the second)
Thanks for reminding me, I can't believe I forgot the Sopwith Camel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equ...aper/camel.jpg
The Camel holds a special place in my heart, actually, because I first got into aviation by reading Capt. W.E. Johns' Biggles books. It was one of Biggles's primary mounts.
The superplane of WW1 was a Fokker triplane, built in the Netherlands but mainly used by the Germans -- the Red Baron flew one. I forget what its name was though, pity...
~Wiz
Richthofen (Red baron) flew a Fokker D.VII, i think it was designed by a guy called Platz.
Sanctaphrax- i also read the "Biggles" series, and they are very intesting, although i dont claim to be overly intrested in aviation (just WW1 really), how many versions of the sopwith series were actively used win WW1?
btw. how do you quote?
just saw the obvious quote button, no worries :D
how many versions of the sopwith series were actively used win WW1?
Sopwith
Pictures of most of them , the Cuckoo and Salamander are two that are definately missing .
Hardest looking , one of the Ju.88s with the 75mm cannon , slow and useless , but what a gun . How about the Drakken or the Viggen ? they look mean yet graceful .
Off the top of my head...1 and a half strutter, Pup, Camel, Dolphin, Salamander, Cuckoo, Snipe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
The DR.1? Richthofen was famous for flying a DR.1, but in fact the vast majority of his victories were achieved on Albatros Biplanes.Quote:
The superplane of WW1 was a Fokker triplane, built in the Netherlands but mainly used by the Germans -- the Red Baron flew one. I forget what its name was though, pity...
As for it being the 'superplane' of world war one, that's contentious. It could turn on a dime, but it found diving very difficult, due to the lift and drag caused by its three wings. It was also underpowered.
Much as I love the Camel, the best all-round fighter of world war one was probably the Fokker D.VII.
Finnish WW2 aircraft are pretty nasty-looking as well, if memory serves...
~Wiz
The Brewster! Yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/buffalo-01.jpg
Is that what you meant?
The Brewster Buffallo-The US hated it, and sold it off to several other countries, including Finland...who managed to acheive the highest kill-loss ratio of all time, if memory serves.
The called it 'the pearl of the sky' because it handled so well.
Well, it's featured in IL-2: Lost Battles, and the thought of that game reminded me of the nasty looks of Finnish aircraft. And yes, the Finnish airforce did very well against the Soviets...
The latter also had nice airplanes, the IL-2 Sturmovik being one of them, of course!
~Wiz
was it the planes that the Finnish used or the pilots that gave them such good ratio?
secondly, i cant remember the name of the guy that "The Red Baron" was chasing when he was shot down, and im too lazy to look it up, any ideas?
Chasing...Well, he was being chased by a Captain Brown, I can't remember the pilot he was chasing.
As for the Finnish, I think it something of a combination. The Brewster just suited the eastern front more than it did the Pacific theatre-as witnessed by the slaughter of most F2As used there-and the Finnish had some excellent pilots.
Here's the Grumman "Avenger" torpedo bomber. Big, fat, and powerful.
http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/TBFs.JPG
I think that record belongs to the F-15. Over 100 planes shot down in air to air combat with no losses :charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
As to why the Finns had so much success. Their pilots were brave, tenacious and good. The Soviets were not very good (twas the same story on the ground). In the East, we were up against modern, fast, nimble japanese planes piloted by well trained, combat veteran pilots.
I think that record belongs to the F-15.
yep 100-0 beats 34-1 , but advanced avionics plays a part there ~;)
Finlands Fighter Squadron 24 still holds the record on combat kills .
Gah, I forgot about the F-15.Quote:
I think that record belongs to the F-15. Over 100 planes shot down in air to air combat with no losses
The Brewster must just have the best W/L ratio of the Second World War, in that case. Something like 500 kills for 40 losses. Although I'd imagine there's a bit of overclaiming in there, it's still bloody impressive for a fighter condemned as a death trap by both Britain and the US.
I remember reading an acct of I think the 555 over Europe flying Jugs. One story in particular of how badly shot up one guy was and how he ended up flying home alone and was caught by an Me-109 who strafed the shit out of him but the Jug kept flying. the 109 did it again and again the Jug was still flying. The 109 pulls up next to him and tips its wing and flies away.
D
And I believe that was the IAF vs Syrian.....the battles over lebanon and Syria. When the Israeli`s pushed into lebanon to beirut in the offensives of the 80`s the Syrians tried to stop them and their AF got waxed pretty good.
Side note...when the Israeli army swept north and fired at and chased off the UN peacekeepers the only ones they gave a wide berth to were the Ghurkas.
D
D
Not sure, I seem to recall the F-4 Corsair was somewhere in the 15 to 1 ratio, though whether that was the whole war or just the late war I dunno. And as tribesman says, avionics (and thrust and agility and weapons) all play their part, but so does the fact that Israeli fighter pilots are probly the best in the world and US fighter pilots are among the best. Dimeolas a large chunk of those kills were by the IAF/DF over the Lebanon, but the USAF got another 30 odd over Iraq and IIRC the Saudis got a few Iranian F-4s in the 80sQuote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
when attacking Lebanon antiaircraft cannons destroyed some 40 Israeli aircraft in the first 48 hours of the war, thats over 10 percent of the frontline strength of the IAF. - I think this was one of the first times that SAM missiles were used to such good effect.
Despite this only five Israeli aircraft were destroyed in air-to-air combat during the entire conflict, Isrealy fighter pilots were obviously good, but those anti-aircraft guns did there bit.
I disagree that that conflict was one were SAMs were used to great effect (especially when you say that it was anti aircraft cannon/guns) It was probly the first time that an attacking air force successfully attacked and destroyed an opponents radar and SAM system. The Israelis learned the hard lessons of the Yom Kippur war where Egyptian SAMs took a terrible toll on Israeli aircraft. It was this inabality to provide CAS for the Israeli army that enabled the Egyptians to keep their beachead over the Suez. In the end Israeli troops told the AF to stop trying because they were just getting blown out the sky. This mirrored the American experience in Vietnam, where although SAMs only accounted for 10% of all US aircraft lost, they forced the US into low-level tactics were they then suffered at the hands of AAA
Over the Lebanon the Israelis successfully combined the use of UAVs, ELINT, jamming, anti-radar missiles and cluster bombs to destroy Syrian SAM and radar sites and operate over Syrian territory with relative ease. I'm not sure if those 40 aircraft lost are Syrian claims, and the may well include UAVs (and/or helicopters). Since then Western AFs have had the ascendancy over SAMs, as evidenced by the way that the intricate air defences of both Iraq and Serbia were quickly and efficiently demolished (using many of the tactics proven by the Israelis in 82).
Yeah, i agree that the Isralis learnt from Yom, and then used waht they learnt effectively later on, the rest of the world also learnt well from this, the Americans had a similar problem, but that was probably also due to the varied enviroment and landscape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi