# Big bombers.



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Although not all these are WW2 bombers, I just want to compare them in size to one another and newer bombers with some interesting pics. 







On the left a B-29 on the right a B-36. 






A B-17 dwarfed by a B-52. 






A B-52 and B-36, I don't know what the aircraft is on the far left, maybe someone knows?






Not good in showing size but, a B-17 and B-29






Two 17s headed up by a Lanc. 

Sorry about how long it might take to load this.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

B-24, B-17...and?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

The triangular shaped bomber is a B-58 Hustler, I believe it was America's first supersonic bomber. The second unidentified plane is a C-46 Commando. I believe it actually had a larger capacity than the C-47 but saw much less service overall.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 5, 2004)

cool pics 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Thank you, Lightning Guy.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

No problem, happy to help.


----------



## R Pope (May 5, 2004)

C-46 was essential in flying the Hump in Burma, the C-47 didn't perform well at altitude. Over 3000 were built, and they were used in Korea and early Vietnam. One of Curtiss' great designs.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

I didn't know they remained in service that long. Of course so did the C-47.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

I knew about a plane called the C-46 but I never saw it, so I didn't recognise it. Thanks for the information. The C-47 is still in civilian use now, with many companies especially in Africa.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

That can't be too healthy for the crew..I know it's not comparing size but its still a good photo. I was expecting some help in finding other pictures comparing sizes, but no.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

sprry mate, ill have a look round, no promises though


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

I found a picture of a B-24 taxiing, with a B-29 behind it. It's not very good at comparing size, but I've lost it now.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)




----------



## Rafe35 (May 6, 2004)

http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/tornado/tornado.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

cool


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

that very first pic is the one i'm normally on about...............

and as for those B-36's, bloody hell!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

i know


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

Very large, yes. Have you heard about that new Airbus (Passenger plane) it's supposed to be the biggest aircraft yet, with the capacity of 800 passengers, I just mentioned it because it's BIG!


----------



## brad (May 8, 2004)

wonder what would have happened if the b36 had come in thewar


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

A lot of bombs would have been dropped.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

it would have been a waste of resorces, they didn't need a bomber that big..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

Well the B-36 idea was started when the US realized they might not be able to count of using Great Britain as a base for its existing "heavy" bombers. The B-36 was intended to be able to bomb Germany with a useful load from bases in the US.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Disgusting, they actually believed Britain might fall...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

Well, during the early part of the war in looked like a iminent reality that the Wermacht would invade Britain. The Battle of the Atlantic was in doubt until late'43 or so. I'm not sure if the B-36 was expecting that Britain would fall or realizing that America might not always be able to count on British bases (like in a future war).


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

May I point out the Royal Navy was never being beaten by the Kriegsmarine. Naval war is vastly different from ground or air war. 

You would have been better saying; America were smart, they were preparing for the worst. As anyone should.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

> Well the B-36 idea was started when the US realized they might not be able to count of using Great Britain as a base for its existing "heavy" bombers. The B-36 was intended to be able to bomb Germany with a useful load from bases in the US.



not true, the B-36 was first designed to be able to carry a nuclear weapon to mosco and back during the cold war..................


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Well that's stupid because the B-52 could bomb many places in Russia with a Nuke. They had 7 B-52s flying 24/7 as part of their Tri-Defence.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

I may have been mistaken it where the B-36 was intended to bomb. I just know that it was made that big because the US was "preparing for the worst" by developing a bomber that would not be dependant on British bases to hit targets in EurAsia.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

That's a better answer.


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

b36 was very good


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

Very big.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Yes, very, very big. The B-52 is the best bomber of that kind to be created, it's combat record proves it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

During the First Gulf War, several Iraqi units surrendered not because they were attack by B-52 but because they had seen units that had! Now that is an effective weapon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

but it has no defencive armourment.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Up through the B-52G there were 4 .50cal machine guns in a remote tail turret. In the B-52H they were replaced by a single Vulcan 20mm cannon. But of course (as you Brits well know) it is the electronic defenses that are most important now. Although, I know the B-52 managed to shoot down at least 2 MiGs over Vietnam.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

And I've heard they can be fitted with air to air missiles anyway. Their record shows their effectivness, nothing can beat them in their role. They can launch nukes, cruises or just a lot of conventional bombs.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

does anyone have some stats for the b-52 or b-36? i havent seen any yet and it would be interesting to see some


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

The B-52 can carry 80,000lbs of conventional bombs. That should be all the stats you need.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

i wanted more really... but still


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

i'll get you more to morrow.......................



> nothing can beat them in their role



that's because there are no other real heavy bombers out there.................


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

can anyone tell me what the first two planes are please?


----------



## ahanswurst (May 12, 2004)

The basic weight of a B-52H model was about 180,000 lbs with 220,000 lbs of fuel and their alert load was 502,000 lbs. that leaves 102,000 lbs for bombs. But the B-52H cofigured for an alert carried 2 Hound dog missles on pylons. Without these missles installed I wonder if they could carry 102,000 lbs of iron bombs. The earlier model B-52's had lower powered jet engines (J-57's) with water injection for takeoff. The B-52H model had the TF-33 P-3 jet engines with a lot more thrust without water injection.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Lancaster, I believe that the first plane is a de Haviland DH 4.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

No there aren't any more heavy bombers Lanc, but the B-52 has been set to be retired for decades. In USAAF standards it is a classic aircraft now, it should be in museums.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

But as a stand-off cruise missile platform there is nothing to replace it. And I believe it is still the only platform in the USAF capable of using the AGM-142 Have Nap missle. There was a design study done a couple decades ago about using a modified 747 to launch something like 70 cruise missiles but nothing ever came of it.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

The B-1...this was set to replace the B-52 but American funding, or more like lack of, disallowed it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2004)

they're amazing pics Plan_D............


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

They are amazing pics. The American government was stupid to abandon such a great plane.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

The B-1 hasn't been abandoned. It just wasn't bought in the numbers originally planned. But what is these days.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

It has basically been abandoned compared to what should have been ordered. It was an amazing plane, and by the time it (if it does) get into service it will be out classed.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

B-1s have been in service for a while now. They have been used over Afganhistan and Iraq. I agree more of them should have been bought, but congress should also have authorized the purchase of more B-2s and F-22s.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

i know it's going back a bit, but does anyone know what the second plane in my pic is?


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I don't. The B-1 is hardly used, it shouldn't even be classed as in operational service. The F-22 will have more orders, anyway, America has plenty of fighters. 

The B-1 was supposed to replace the B-52, it has not, therefore it has been all but abandoned. Plus, I've never heard or seen reports of them in action over Iraq.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 14, 2004)

With good reason. As far as I know, it hasn't been used in "Operation Iraqi Freedom", but it was used in the Gulf War as well as in Kosovo.
But yes, it should be used more. I especially love that water skimming pic!


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I heard a few reports of action in the Gulf but only a few. I can't recall any in Kosovo. Yes, it is a good photo. It is a very good looking aircraft.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 14, 2004)

True, the B-1B is awesome. However, I prefer the B-1A (prototype that went faster and was all white) myself. Although it carried a smaller load, it looked better, flew, higher, and went faster.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Now that I did not know. Any particular reason for it becoming what it did? Maybe the B-1A didn't have the capability to carry certain stand-off missiles.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

The B-1A was cancelled by the Carter administration (yay Carter - gag!). Anyway, the B-1A was faster but wasn't designed for the low-altitude flights preferred now. The B-1B is a little slower at altitude but faster on the deck (something like Mach 1.1 at sea level). To the best of my knowledge, the B-1B was not used during the Gulf War and has seens some use since then. Part of the reason is that the B-1B was later in receiving its upgrades to use PGMs. No one cares about accuracy when your dropping thermo-nuclear bombs.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I did hear of reports of some form of B-1 operating in the Persian Gulf, but I have not heard reports of it from Kosovo and 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. 
What a poor operation name, they just don't try anymore.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

No they don't. Codenames have become a P.R. function, like everything else today.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Where did the good 'ole days go when we had names like Opertion Neptune, Jupiter, Overlord, Market Garden, Torch, Crusader and Jericho?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Husky, Avalanche, Tidal Wave . . .


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Are we just going to start naming Operation names now? Can we include German ones as well?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

I was just adding a few suggestions. I only know the names of a handfull of German ops, notably Barbarosa, Sea Lion, Eagle Day, and Watch on the Rhine.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Eagle Day isn't an operation name. Albertag was just the first day in the BoB. German ones : Fall Weis, Fall Gelb, Barbarossa, Zitadel...to tell you the truth I don't know many


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Well Alder Tag was still a German Code name. And I have heard of several of those, I just don't remember what the were now.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Alder Tag, yes sorry. Fall Weis - Invasion of Poland, Fall Gelb - Invasion of France and lowlands, Barbarossa - Invasion of Russia, Zitadel - Attack on Moscow. Also, Operation Sea Lion - Invasion of Britain.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

That's right. Thanks.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

No problem, aircraft is actually the lower side of my World War 2 knowledge, as most might have noticed


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

It's my high side.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

I noticed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

i have no side of ww2


----------



## brad (May 15, 2004)

b36 was very big though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

the last two posts were very inspirational...........

and yes, the B-36 was very big, bigger than the B-52..............


----------



## brad (May 15, 2004)

yhea my sineture wroks


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

thankyou for pointing out the obvious you 2


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

but it's not that obvious, most people think the B-52 is bigger than the B-36, if they've even heard of the second one.............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

They are both big, the B-36 obviously being the bigger, as we all know.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

Ok, now for a little upclose info on the B-52! I lived next to a SAC base in Maine Loring cloesest US mainland base to Europe and if during the cold war, would have been wiped out by a first strike. 

Anywho, the B-52 is Big, yes the B-36 was but did not last. The B-53 even still has a tailgun, or did up through the H model I think. It will be retiered at some point, but the USAF statagy is changing again and America cannot come to turms with an aircraft program that is flexible and cost effective, say like the Euro2000 

The B-1B Spirit, also had fuel problums in the begining and was designed for first strike raids over Soviets. So the B-52 is just a better platform to carpet bomb the desert with. I should never be retiered and well why not bring it back? I know that is not really an option, but the plane is older then me and some on this forum, but I do not see even the F-22 becomming operational in the numbers it needs to be in and the F-35 project is in trouble because this war is sucking a lot of cash.

In close well I have stood beside a B-52 and seen them fly and nothing can compair to the sould, well maybe a B-24 on take off, but that big massice bombbay filled with bombs or 12 plus cruis missles. Or some 2k bombs to make the ground shake.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

people often say there's nothing that compares to the sound of a merlin, but i've never heard one............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The B-52G was the last to have a Gatling gun in the tail, the H has air to air missiles. The Rockwell B-1B can carry twice as much as the B-52 over the same distance, and was superior to the B-52 in everyway. 
It was cancelled, and priority was given to cruise missile research (The B-1 was designed in 1976). Rockwell kept it open, and the B-1 is always there but officially has been cancelled. 

The B-70 was also set to replace the B-52, that failed also. It doesn't look that the B-52 will be replaced soon. It can still form the third side of the 'triad' defence, if a new threat arises.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

thanks for the corection on the tail guns. I think that the B-52 will be around for a while or well until the USAF dose pull it out. The Airforce says it is good for another 15 years or so. maybe the B-3 will finally do it in.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I don't see that coming, I think if the US government pulls its finger out it'll have the B-1 in service.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

The B-1B is in service. THe B-70 was cancelled because it was designed to be a high speed, high altitude bomber. The shoot down of Francis Power's U-2 convinced the US that flying higher and faster was no longer safe. That's why the B-70 was cancelled.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

The B-1 was designed as a super-sonic bomber at altitude, and sub-sonic bomber at tree top heights. The B-1B is not in full service, I've already said, it was designed to replace the B-52, which it has not. 
The B-70 was also cancelled, which has left the B-52 as the workhorse, and in fact the only bomber in proper service. The B-1 does no see action, it has only had a FEW combat tests in the first Gulf, and maybe in Kosovo although I haven't heard reports. 

Your government won't get its finger out, if it does the B-1 will probably be put into service, until then there's nothing on the horizon to replace the B-52.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

Well the B-1 was actually revived by Reagen, but no it wasn't produced in the numbers it should have been (but what is these days). The basic thing is that the B-52 is still doing the job and as long as it is doing its job congress is unlikely to authorize funding for a proper replacement.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

i can see it being around for a while, but like everyone keeps saying, warfare's changing.................


----------



## MP-Willow (May 19, 2004)

It will be. We no longer want to drop nukes on people, for a first strike and that means redesigning things. I saw a very strange sight a B-2 carpetbombing in Iraq I think? But both it and the B-1 need to be tweeked for conventional payload. The B-52 already is! But why do we still need these expensive near stelth aircraft? Who are we fighting that it warrents that type of mission?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

No one right now. But there is always North Korea.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

North Korea, don't make me laugh. The American government makes out that they are a threat, when in reality they are just running up a Nuclear power, and most likely weapon programme. Something all of the Western World has had for decades. 

The B-52 will still be in service for a while, its already there so there's no need for spending money on new aircraft, or that's the American Governments mentality. Not realising the HUGE matinence costs on these old aircraft. 
The B-52 does not only carry conventional 'carpet bombing' loads, it can carry cruise missiles, and stand-off missiles. The fact that it can carry cruise missiles has kept as one of the fronts of any offensive campaign. 

The B-1 and B-2 can both carry conventional loads but it would be a waste of money having these aircraft just for that job. I posted a picture somewhere on here of a B-2 dropping conventional 'iron' bombs. 
The B-52 needs no replacement, but the most likely will be the B-2 as it has the capabilities, and larger survivability than the B-52. These craft at the moment are deterrants for anyone, even if they are not a 'threat' now, they can be.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

I'm not sure if you have looked lately but North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world. And, technically, American (and Britain) are still at war with them . . .


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 20, 2004)

you notice that wherever america are fighting, the brits sren't far behind.................


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

I don't know if you've looked lately but Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world, in the Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf and this Iraq war. And would you have considered them a threat? 

Lancaster, the joint effort between America and Britain in Korea was because their strengthened friendship, and combined assault on Communism. 
These days I fail to see why Britain helps them so much, militarily Britain isn't really needed, although it's always a lot, lot easier for America when Britain are there. Especially in the Middle East since the Arabs have at least some respect for the British. And Britain doesn't NEED America in the way the government believes, it just finds it a cheaper option to have Americas forces as the brute force. Although, I seem to realise they rely too strongly on America, especially after Falklands. 

You'll probably find also that America is first in politically but Britain is first militarily. The SAS and SBS are normally first there, followed by Delta Force admittedly a lot of time they work in conjunction (never together).


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

Because the special forces of out two countries cross-train so much that they might as well be the same unit. Now I will agree that, when it comes to special forces, the SAS are the big boys on the block (although the Israeli's might be able to challenge them).


----------



## MP-Willow (May 21, 2004)

Interesting thought that the B-52 is still tha deterrant, when it's radar Cross Section is huge and it needs near clear skies to fly in now. That said the B-2 will not be in the big production numbers that in would have to to fully replace the B-52.

As for the Maintance they are always being updated and fitted with new systems. Maybe the Air Force should do the same thing with the B-52 as they did with the F/A-18, and make a new airfram around the old one. The Supper Hornet is not a bad plane.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

The B-52 can fly in almost any weather, and with it carrying Nuclear weapons it can serve as a very effective deterrant. It can also be used as a low level bomber, hard to believe with its size. You'll always find it on the front line, firing cruises and flattening areas. It's the work horse, and it will be for years to come. 
I was talking of Matinence of the air frame because of fatigue and cracking, when that happens it cost a lot to replace. And it happens more on older planes. They will also be doing full matinence checks more often on the older aircraft, taking the engines out, checking the air frame...checking everything basically. 

The SAS can work with other British trained forces, like in Sierra Leone they worked effectively with the Paras, but rarely they work with others. British special forces working with American is a big no-no, they are so different it would be dangerous to mix them. An example, the Navy Seals when under heavy fire are trained to shoot and retreat, the SAS are trained to shoot and move forward. 
The SAS are the superior force in the world, no one can match them. They have experience in every type of combat, and all of their operations show their effectiveness.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

The B-2s will never he able to replace the B-52, not one-for-one anyway. Initially it was planned to buy 100 B-2s. That's been cut to 21.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 22, 2004)

So the B-52 stays flying until they fall out of the sky and have no more fliable airframes?  The B-2 is just too expensive and do we need 100 of them anywho? If you all beleave in the B-52 and stratigic bombing. As for low leavel. They did a little in Iraq but try that where there are lots of fighters or well set SAM sirs and see what hapens.

As for the SAS and US Special ops there is a compotion help each year to see who come out on top. Looking at that I see US Rangers have won more. but that is not a real indepth look at the compotion.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 22, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> (although the Israeli's might be able to challenge them).


Gotta love how crazy the Jews/Israelis have become thanks to the U.S.
They are to the extent of my knowledge, the only allied nation that carries out political assassinations - and, they do it with Helo's!
They have one of the best armies and air forces in the world, like I said, mostly thanks to the U.S. through being provided with M4's and M16's and other planes like Phantoms, F16's and that new plane they have that is like a Delta F-16 with candards.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

> As for the SAS and US Special ops there is a compotion help each year to see who come out on top. Looking at that I see US Rangers have won more. but that is not a real indepth look at the compotion.



there are no special forces that can match the SAS, the SAS is the unit on which all other specialist units are based..............


----------



## brad (May 23, 2004)

the b36 had 6 props fasing back wawrds and to cope with the pay load 4 2.913 in (inch) jet engines on each wing the b52 has 8 3.219 in (inch) so it is obviouce whitch is bigger


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2004)

> and to cope with the pay load 4 2.913 in (inch) jet engines on each wing



it was two on each wing and they were only used to give a bit extra speed over the target, they weren't on all the time....................


----------



## brad (May 23, 2004)

there were 2 sets of 2 2+2=4 addition and they were used to help take off as when the higher pay load was introdusesed they tryed to take one off and it went though the 2 fileds that followed the air field


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

MP-Willow I think you've been misinformed about the NATO exercises; the SAS does not take part in these 'competitions, neither do the Navy Seals, Delta Force or SBS. 
The U.S Rangers are classed as a 'specialist' unit and are marked above the normal U.S Army, and Marines. Here in Britian we have the Army in which there are many different regiments, the most famed and highly skilled being the Paras. We then have the Royal Marines, the commandos who are not special forces, neither are the paras. Then there's the RAF Regiment, who are also not special forces but are all very well trained. The RAF regiment and Marines are normally the ones at the top of the NATO exercises, above the U.S Rangers, Marines and standard Army. 
The first official incursion into Iraq (2003) was made by the Royal Marines and Navy SEALs, a British standard unit with an American specialist. 
The B-52 will keep flying, they won't fall out of the sky because of the expensive matinence put into them, that keeps them flying. The B-52 can do low level attack work, and has done it in the past. On the SAMs, look at Vietnam, for 11 days in late 1972, pausing only to celebrate Christmas, B-52s pounded North Vietnams capital Hanoi and its harbour Haiphong in the most savage bombing campaign in the history of air warfare, it flattened the place but with a loss of 15 B-52s to the Vietcong SAMs.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 24, 2004)

Plan_D: Thanks I will look into that B-52 missions. As for the special units I should read more on the structure of the British sorry for my poor education.

The IAI F-10 project (The Delta F-16 derivitive) was canceled in 1987 due to increased coast and that the US Congress was afriad it would hurt the export of the F-16. It is reported that China has worked with the IAI to develop the J-10 an aircraft that is just like the F-10. That is what I found with a quick serch. there are some new Delta designs, but I need to look deeper. 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

Don't apologise, you are always learning, as everyone is. I'm sure there's plenty you know, that I don't. 
Did you know (Or this is what I read) the first Delta wing craft to fly was the Avro 707...amazing, I just read that today.


----------



## brad (May 25, 2004)

f16 good plane


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

The F-16 is a good plane. However, it should not be confused as being big or a bomber.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

Well it could have bomber put to its name, but more of a Multi-Role craft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

while we're on the subject of jets, what role would you give the harrier, is it a fighter, multi-role, ground attack or anything else??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Predominately it has been used as a ground attack aircraft. The addition of radar and AMRAAMs to the newest versions have done alot to improve it as a fighter though.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 26, 2004)

Plan_D, I have not looked at the first Delta, yet another aircrat type I could look at, I am trying to pick a few and learn more about them.

As for the F-16 I was designed I would say as a pure fighter that could have done very well in WWII dogfights with only cannon. It is a fighter bomber, but as such it is not as good as the F/A-18. A storry here that two Hornets in the Gulf War in 1991 were on a bombing run when they cam up on two Mig-29s, they shot the migs down and went on the bomb run. Never needing to shed the bombs to down the fighters.

As for the herrier, it is a ground attack close support. A friend is in Iraq now with the Marines as a Harrier driver.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

dirver, do you mean pilot or are we back with the lawnmower..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Pilot. Many fighter pilots commonly refer to themselves as drivers as in Eagle Driver.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

The F-16 was designed as a fighter but soon found it capable of ground attack and bombing runs. It is a multi-role aircraft. 

The F/A-18 is a good fighter, a little slow, but good. It shooting down these MiG-29s (which personally I find hard to believe) would not really prove much, in the hands of Iraqi pilots it can be a poor craft. I haven't heard of Iraq ever having MiG-29s, maybe 21s or 23s but not 29s. I don't know, maybe you can prove otherwise. 

The Harrier is a multi-role aircraft, mainly known as ground attack though. In the Falklands War they were credited with several Argentinian Mirage and A-4 Skyhawk kills while only losing three Harriers in the whole war to ground fire. 
The Gr.7 is more than capable of dogfighting with the best of them, day or night. I imagine the (American) AV-8B is capable of this also, with the same RADAR as the Hornet, and Gr.7 as mentioned before.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

The center-mounted engine of the Harrier is something of a liability though as an IR missle will home on the center of the plane rather than the tail. 

Plan_D, you should find this site interesting . . . 

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/gulf/IraqiAircraft.html#mig29


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2004)

surely if you're it by a missile it doesn't make any difference where you're hit.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

You'd be surprised. Most IR missles have a relatively small warhead (25lbs on the Sidewinder) and a plane with two engines might survive (or at least remain stable enough for ejecting to be practical). A Harrier would receive a hit right in the center of the plane which would at least cause considerably more structural damage and perhaps even kill the pilot.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2004)

but if the missile came in from behind it would hit the back end first so it's the same as having the ngine at the back, and as the exaust of the harrier isn't at the back it would stand more of a chanse??


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

> while we're on the subject of jets, what role would you give the harrier, is it a fighter, multi-role, ground attack or anything else??


yhea early worning


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

It depends on where the missle is launched from. A surface fire IR would strike right in the midsection and so would anything else launched from a lower altitude. You also have to realize that this would be hitting right about where the wings meet the fuselage. Not a good place for an explosion.


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

> http://www.britains-smallwars.com/gulf/IraqiAircraft.html#mig29


i have die cast models of all of them


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

cool 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

die-cast, that must have cost a small fortune.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

or a large one.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

it depends on your definition of a fortune..........


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

yhea bit did and cc is closer


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

8)


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)




----------



## MP-Willow (May 29, 2004)

Plan_D, the Hornet F/A-18 is still very good. As for the Mig-29s most that were in Iraq tried to flee to Iran, where they were held and not returned. As for the story of the shootdown, I think it is true, should look for it in AirForce History.


----------



## brad (Jun 2, 2004)

> the Hornet F/A-18 is still very good. As


not


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2004)

I don't believe I said the F/A-18 was a poor aircraft even if it is slow. I know of the aircraft handovers to Iran but I still never realised they had MiG-29s.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

brad said:


> > the Hornet F/A-18 is still very good. As
> 
> 
> not



another extensive post there...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

well, its very direct and straight to the point, whaich has gotta be a good thing


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

not to erich................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

its good for me  at least i can understand it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2004)

don't lie...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

that was uncalled for.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

nothing is uncalled for my boy.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

carefull, you'll have people thinking you're my dad, unless there's sumthing you're not telling me ..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

nah, if i was your dad you would be much better looking


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

And that's what we call a cheap shot.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

no, thats what we call fact


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2004)

don't worry about him, he's just jealous of me........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

but you had your haircut and no-one could tell  besides, ive been classed as looking like several famous people before


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2004)

so have i ........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

such as?


[this'll be good  ]


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2004)

brad pitt for one................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2004)

i knew you would say that, and you look nothing like brad pitt  perhaps a non-drugged-up russell crowe maybe


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

can you prove i don't look like brad pitt??

i kindly request that you don't post any pictures of me please, for security reasons..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

what makes you think id have a picture of you?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

don't deny it, i know about your little shrine to me....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

i dont have a shrine to you  but i have a voodoo doll.......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

close enough for me..............


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> does anyone have some stats for the b-52 or b-36? i havent seen any yet and it would be interesting to see some



I just saw this thread and I really love all the big bombers so I figured I'd post some stats. Most of my info comes from a couple of really good books on the B-36 Ive got, one is the warbird tech series and the other is Magnesium Overcast. Let me tell you if you ever want to buy either of the two books go for Mag Overcast, EVERYTHING in the warbird tech is included in Mag Overcast!

Anyway for the XB-36 model:

There were 6 Pratt Whitney R-4360-25
Max speed: 346 mph @ 35000
Cruise: 216 mph
Ceiling: 36000
Wingspan: 230' 0"
Length: 162' 1"

B-36B
6 P&W R-4360-41
Max speed: 381 mph @ 34500
Cruise: 202 mph
Ceiling: 42500
Range: 8175 miles
Max takeoff weight: 311000 lbs
Armament: Two 20-mm M24A1 cannon each in six retractable, remotely-controlled fuselage turrets, tail turret and nose mounting, with 9200 rounds of ammunition.
Maximum bomb load 86,000 pounds 

B-36J Featherweight III
6 P&W R-4360-53 plus 4 5200 lb.s.t. General Electric J47-GE-19 turbojets converted to run on 145 octane av gas
Max speed: 411 mph @ 36400
Cruise: 203 mph
Ceiling: 47000
Range: 6800 miles with 10000lb bombload
Max takeoff weight: 410000 lbs
Armament: Two 20-mm M24A1 cannon in tail turret
Maximum bomb load 86,000 pounds

The B-36J Featherweight III's and the B-36B's were the best in my opinion. Even though the J III's were listed with a ceiling of 47k there are documented cases where they cruised at over 60k. One very reputable B-36 pilot I have talked to mentioned a few times that he had been to 63k.
He did say the time he was that high that the crew wore a pressurized suit. The other times he just said they were on oxygen. Even though the B-36 was pressurized they could only maintain a certain differential pressure. I don't have the exact figures here now but I do know an equivalent of 8000' could be maintained up to 25000', he mentioned that the crew would put on oxygen when climbing above the equivalent of 10000' cabin pressure.

Some interesting stuff. The B-36 was designed in case England fell so that raids could take place across the atlantic. The first design proposal came in 1941, but as war conditions improved the design was given low priority. The first XB-36 rolled out in September 1945, but its first flight didn't occur until August 1946. 

The aircraft could fly at altitudes so high that the twin turbochargers would have trouble with manifold pressure pulsations. As the engines got less air lower exhaust flow would result. With this lower exhaust flow divided between two turbos there would not be enough flow to provide adequate efficient operation. So to solve this the left turbo could be shut down and its exhaust flow diverted to the right turbo. Now exhaust flow would be high enough to provide proper operation and the pulsations would cease. Flight engineer data states that the engineer should switch to single turbo when the wastegates of both are closed. There was no provision to shut down the right turbo and run on the left. The reason for this because cabin pressurization was provided by the right turbo.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 11, 2005)

Ah cool - thanks 8)


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2005)

The B-1 and B-2 are necessary. Stealth is a critical component for destroying enemy SAM sites. The B-1s and B-2s do stealth attacks on SAM sites as well as those areas that are likely to be very highly defended. Leaving enemies with only hand-held air-defense leaves them open to air-attack by the more venerable strategic air assets. This is why the B-1 and B-2 actually made it into service in any quantity. True they could have SA-7 Grails, however these are extremely inaccurate weapons. To be truely effective against a jet aircraft a computer and processing power is needed. Not something that is really effective handheld.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 21, 2005)

Do you mean the F-117 and the B2? The B-1 isn't a stealth aircraft, although it is probably more stealthy than the B-52.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2005)

very sleek lines, very shexy...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 21, 2005)

What; the F-117, B-1, B-2 r B-52?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 21, 2005)

The B-1 creates 1/20th of the signature of a B-52.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

The whole effectiveness of aircraft such as the B-2 and F-117 Stealth-Fighter is to clear out the SAMs and anti-aircraft defences so that conventional aircraft can operate more effectively. So far as I am aware the first few missions of the Iraqi Freedom campaign involved B-2s and F-117s scouting and destroying Iraqi SAM and aircraft defence sites so that the other aircraft could come in and do their work. These stealth aircraft are necessary to undertake work for protecting conventional aircraft that come in later.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> The whole effectiveness of aircraft such as the B-2 and F-117 Stealth-Fighter is to clear out the SAMs and anti-aircraft defences so that conventional aircraft can operate more effectively. So far as I am aware the first few missions of the Iraqi Freedom campaign involved B-2s and F-117s scouting and destroying Iraqi SAM and aircraft defence sites so that the other aircraft could come in and do their work. These stealth aircraft are necessary to undertake work for protecting conventional aircraft that come in later.



I don't believe the B-2 was used in Desret Storm, it was used over Kosovo.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

The whole idea of the B2 was to hunt the Russian mobile ICBM's. The conventional role for it was a second thought. Its synthetic aperature radar was to be used to look for the big chassis hidden in the forests, that these missles needed. Nuke tipped short range missles would be used to destroy them (as well as any Air defenses that werent already obliterated by other nukes).

The B2 was designed during the cold war for nuclear warfare. Fortunatley, it has been able to adapt to the conventional role with no problems.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 7, 2005)

Precisely, many pilots found out just how dangerous radar and SAM site destruction could be in Vietnam where large numbers of aircraft were destroyed by these sites. Therefore it has already become aware that the conventional aircraft is becoming rapidly unable to function well on the modern battlefield without all or the majority of radar and SAM sites being destroyed first. It seems that a low radar signature may be an advantage in tracking the emissions from these sites and destroying them. Hence the B-1, B2 and F-117 all have new roles.


----------

