# Best "Western World" post WWII Bomber



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

which is/was best??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Post-WW2 - this should be in the other forum. this is for modern planes, classified by being after Vietnam, ill move it later


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

that's for your opinion............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2004)

Bomer is spelled with a B in the middle... 

BOMBER.....


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 6, 2004)

No doubt - Avro Vulcan - okay, it had a smaller bomb load, but apart from that it could do all the things a B52 could, and was far more manouverable. I wonder how it would developed, had Skybolt not been cancelled? Maybe a vastly upgraded version would still have been in service today?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Avro Vulcan's are great planes 8)


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 7, 2004)

I remember in the Eighties seeing several of them lined up in a row by the perimeter wire - impressive stuff!

Mind you, you need to see, hear, and feel one take off. I've never heard such a racket in my life, and the sight of this huge Vulcan lifting off the tarmac - brilliant!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Lucky...

Like a lot of planes, I didnt know they existed until about a year ago


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2004)

I've seen a Vulcan fly too, its an awe-inspiring sight. Im not sure if you can class it as being 'better' than the B52 tho, it doesnt have such an extensive combat record, so it remains a 'what-if'


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 7, 2004)

To be sure, it's all hypothetical, the job it was designed to do was thankfully just a 'what if'. 

Nah, what I was getting at was that the manouverablity of such a big crate was astounding, it could even outfly EE Lightnings, which in turn proved more than a match for the Phantom.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2004)

Very true 8) I was just thinking in terms of actual action they'd seen, the B52 was a nuclear bomber by design, but it managed to carve itself a new niche with the Arc Light raids in Vietnam. It would have been interesting to see how the Vulcan survived such a drastic change in its mission profile.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 7, 2004)

Medvedya said:


> Mind you, you need to see, hear, and feel one take off. I've never heard such a racket in my life, and the sight of this huge Vulcan lifting off the tarmac - brilliant!



I saw one fly at an air show here, about twenty years ago.
It _was_ an impressive display!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

B-36 is good also 8) Did it ever see any form of combat?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 7, 2004)

No. It was only in service for eight years, before being replaced by the B-52. It never saw combat.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2004)

I believe some were later converted to RB-36 standard and used in recon overflights of Communist territory. Of course, the USAF does not count this as combat as the overflights never happened


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 7, 2004)

Of course.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Shame


----------



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

perhaps CC didn't quite get that part.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

I knew I was missing summit...what am I missing?


----------



## MichaelHenley (Dec 8, 2004)

It's the fact the the US Government _deny_ that it ever happened!
Soviets: Did you do any spying missions with those B-36's of yours?
US (Even though they probably did):No, of Couse not!
Soviets: Then where did this spy material of yours originate from? Eh?
US: How did you know it was spy material?
Soviets: Our Spies... D'OH!  

Ayway, after the Vulcan, It'd have to be the B-2, Then the B-1.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 8, 2004)

The Russians were fully aware of the overflights - they had the crews in the Gulag and bits of US bomber all over the place. The US remained adamant though, telling the families of those MIA that they were killed in training. Worst of all, the US made these 'accidents' sound like the crews own faults! I find it a little tragic that they had to be quite so cruel about it.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Dec 8, 2004)

What's the Gulag? I've heard of it before, but have no idea what it's about.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 8, 2004)

MichaelHenley said:


> What's the Gulag? I've heard of it before, but have no idea what it's about.



Forced labour camps. Political prisoners, mostly.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Dec 10, 2004)

Ooh! Norty sthawin!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

The Avro Vulcan was certainly a brilliant aircraft. Originating from the worlds first delta wing aircraft. Of course, a British design. 

I see everyone has failed to mention the Vulcan raids on the first days of the Falklands War. One of the biggest distances ever covered in one single mission to bomb Port Stanley, from England to Falklands. 

I have felt, seen and heard a Vulcan take off vertically. Curling over on one wing at around 1000 feet and pulling away to the ashtonishment of everyone watching...purely to have a go at the Lightning squadrons who enjoyed doing it all the time.


----------



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

the vulcan flew THE longest bombing mission of all time from the assention islands to the falklands, two bombers had 11 tanker aircraft to help them make the trip....................


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

That's the trip from England, actually. It's the same mission, the Ascention isles are pretty close to the Falklands.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 22, 2004)

Is England to the Falklands further than Missouri to Iraq? The B-2s did that run during the latest Gulf War. Whiteman AFB, Missouri to Iraq and back. That's a long bomb run!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

> I have felt, seen and heard a Vulcan take off vertically. Curling over on one wing at around 1000 feet and pulling away to the ashtonishment of everyone watching...purely to have a go at the Lightning squadrons who enjoyed doing it all the time.



I would love to have seen that.


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 22, 2004)

plan_D said:


> That's the trip from England, actually. It's the same mission, the Ascention isles are pretty close to the Falklands.



No they 'ain't!  They're about 3000 miles from the Falklands - a ten hour trip in the back of a Hercules!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

I was saying that in reference compared to England. I know, my dad has told me about his trip down there during the Falklands war, which he faught in.


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 22, 2004)

Yeah that's true, it's nearer, but it's still a mammoth journey from Ascension down to Stanley. Even the Tristars can't make the journey without stopping at Ascension to refuel.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 22, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I was saying that in reference compared to England. I know, my dad has told me about his trip down there during the Falklands war, which he faught in.



What did/does your dad do in the service?


(How's _that_ for alliteration?  )


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

He was an aircraft technician. 11 Fighter Squadron, with Lightnings during most of the Cold War. Service in Northern Ireland. One of the first electricians trained on the Chinook and was requested to serve both in the Falklands and Gulf for his expertise on them.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 22, 2004)

Well, that's certainly something!


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 22, 2004)

He wasn't on the Atlantic Conveyor was he?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Nope, but he loaded it up with the Chinooks in Southhampton. And kept the soul surviving Chinook running until the new ones went down.


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 22, 2004)

I think it was called Bravo November.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

I don't know, I would ask him but he's at work. I know he knew a lad who was on the Conveyor 'Little Andy' a rigger who was going down to the Falklands with the Chinooks while my dad was flown down in a Herc.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Cool! 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

And I have flown in a bunch of CH-47's, some of which planD's Dad probably had worked on.. I did some Joint Ops with some of the Brits, and that was the main transport for us.... And I was in when his Dad was in the service as well... 

We talked about this before, planD and I....


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 19, 2005)

The B-36 was a good bomber and very capable. It was also a very large bomber as the photos I have posted elsewhere show. I can remember hearing the quote 'They maketh a desert and they call it peace' in relation to this bomber.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 19, 2005)

For post war piston powered aircraft the B-36 is definately king in my book. A close second would go to the B-50D, it was marginally faster and was equipped with inflight refuelling.

For jet aircraft the B-52 has range and the payload to go with it. Another favorite is the B-58 Hustler.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2005)

The B-58 was cool! I loved that bird. Shame about the landing gear on it though. It was pretty problematic. Like I always say, plane no take off, bad. Plane no land, REAL bad!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 22, 2005)

> For post war piston powered aircraft the B-36 is definately king in my book. A close second would go to the B-50D, it was marginally faster and was equipped with inflight refuelling.



Ah but did the B-36 not have have jet engines as well? Can you call it a Jet or a prop plane?


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 22, 2005)

Not all of the B-36's had jets. Jets were first added to the D models although they were only used during takeoff and for extra speed over target. They also allowed a higher ceiling. They were General Electric J47's converted to run on regular 145 octane avgas.

My truly favorite B-36 is the Featherweight III J model. It was stripped of basically everything, no turrets (except tail guns) no crew comfort and such. They carried more fuel and had stronger landing gear as well. All reduction in weight allowed a much greater range and a huge ceiling. They had the jets too, but just the same it was only used for extra power when needed. Id just as soon call it a piston engined aircraft. I got tons of info on these suckers if ya need it too


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 22, 2005)

Any decent pics?


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 22, 2005)

Unfortunately not on the internet, all mine are in books. I do have a few scans of flight engineer operations though, specifically on single turbo operation.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 23, 2005)

My favourite post war bomber has to be either the Vulcan or the Canberra, it fulfilled the essential role of light, tactical bomber for the RAF and the Americans actually made some of their own. They named it the B-57


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 23, 2005)

The Vulcan is a kick-ass plane...why is it so much more well known than the other V-Bombers? (I think its the Vickers Valiant and Handley-Page Victor)


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 23, 2005)

The Vulcan was the only V-bomber still operational as a bomber in the Falklands, also it had the most radical design IMO


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2005)

It was a different kind of V bomber too, and the other two got made into air-to-air re-fuellers.


----------



## MikeMan (Jan 25, 2005)

If I limit it to Post-WW2 -> Vietnam then I would say the XB-70.

Post Vietnam probably either FB-111 or B-1B


----------



## evangilder (Jan 26, 2005)

XB-70s were really cool!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

but for a post war piston plane (up to medern day) why not the russian bear??


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2005)

Because the Tu-95 'Bear' is not a piston plane. The reference to PISTON is refering to Piston ENGINE. The Bear is a Turbo-SHAFT plane. It has props, but it is not a piston aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Whats the difference?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2005)

A JET ENGINE DOESN'T HAVE PISTONS IN IT!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

You dont say...

How do jet engines work the props on the Tu-95 is what I was trying to say...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2005)

Why didn't you say that then?  

You mean, how is Turbo-Shaft different from Turbo-Prop?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

I think so...im not sure anymore, lets just say im confused


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2005)

Oh...k. 

What ever you requested, Lanc was wrong to call the Tu-95 a piston aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Thats a Tu-95 in your sig aint it?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2005)

Escorted by the F.6 Lightning, yes.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 30, 2005)

Oh God, the Turboshaft debate again...


Ok, look...

The NK-12 engines on the Bear and An-22 each produce 15,000hp; ever seen that in a piston?


Anyway, the air enters the engine like a jet's, is compressed, exits the compressor inside the housing, and goes past a turbine that's connected to the propellor shaft...


To make it easier...

1)Air goes in
2)Air is compressed
3)Air exits compressor
4)Compressed air turns a turbine in the rear
5)Turbine in turn turns the shaft the propellors are connected to...



Basically a piston engine that is powered by a turbojet, rather than pistons...

A great concept, but they have to be huge for it to work correctly, and almost undoubtedly need contraprops (HUGE contraprops) to handle the power...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Ah right it makes sense now! 8) Thanks


----------



## plan_D (Jan 31, 2005)

I didn't know what he was asking!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2005)

> The NK-12 engines on the Bear and An-22 each produce 15,000hp; ever seen that in a piston?



the largest internal combustion engine in the world sits in the Shanghi Express (a container ship) and produces 92,000hp...........


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 31, 2005)

Woah...

Powerful, but archaic...


----------



## Cougar (Jan 31, 2005)

sry im a bit behind on the convo but id say the best post war would have to be the Valkarie.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

Nice plane...


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 16, 2005)

Yes, it was the victim of an unfortunate mistake, the Valkyrie, as I recall, a following jet, think it was an F-18 or something, got caught in the wake and ripped to shreds causing the loss of both aircraft. The variable geometry tail causes a lot of wake. If I had the ability I'd post a small gif showing the wing flexibility, but I can't and it would be unfair to those on dial-up to anyway.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 16, 2005)

The Valkyrie actually collided with an F-104 Starfighter. Here is a pic just after the collision, the 104 is tumbling and disintegrating.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)




----------



## evangilder (Feb 16, 2005)

Yep, a real shame.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

You wouldnt think something like that could happen...what with radar and things...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 16, 2005)

I'm guessing the Starfighter pilot didn't make it. Too bad.


----------



## Medvedya (Feb 16, 2005)

I heard those things were real death-traps.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 16, 2005)

According to the Bundesmarine, anyway. I understand the nickname came from them, but that could be wrong.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 16, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> You wouldnt think something like that could happen...what with radar and things...



Agreed, but the radar only tells you where things are, doesn't necessarily help avoid unfortunate things like this. Radar is much better today and I would think they could build a collision avoidance system.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 7, 2005)

I don't know that it exactly, hit the XB-70 Valkyrie, as such according to the video, until after it had already hit trouble in the wake. Looking at the NASA video, I would say it looks like the pilot somehow got into the wake, and then torn, impacted with the Valkyrie in such a way as to bring both planes down. The way I interpret the crash video is, the F-104 Starfighter Pilot has hit the slipstream of the Valkyrie, he is fighting for control of his aircraft as it is slowly getting torn to shreds, as he is fighting for control to get away from the Valkyrie, in his struggle he ends up clipping the Valkyrie and bringing both planes down.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 7, 2005)

There is no real way to tell how far the wake would extend on a real aircraft of such a radical design. Therefore unfortunately this is a disaster that could happen again in the future. The F-104 looks to be very shaky and unstable before it hits the Valkyrie. Hard to see since it is Quicktime, but I think there is a noticeable shake. The F-104 pilot unwittingly strayed into the slipstream of the XB-70 and both paid the ultimate price for that one mistake.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 8, 2005)

I would think wind-tunnel tests could give a pretty good idea of where the slipstream was for safety briefings. But then again, at high speed, it only takes a fraction of a second for things to go terribly wrong.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 25, 2005)

Even windtunnel testing is only a guide to whether an aircraft warrants further work and its capabilites. That is why there are still service tests. If windtunnel tests were good then we could in theory go straight from drawing board to windtunnel to service, without the service testing. Nature is very changable, the wind in a windtunnel isn't exactly turned in every direction that well to see how the aircraft reacts. Therefore wind-tunnel tests are a guide- not a definitive fact. Especially when dealing with such exotic aircraft as the XB-70 Valikyrie.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 26, 2005)

Agreed, I was just saying that the wind tunnel, using smoke, can determine where the slipstream and turbulence behind the aircraft are. This would give the chase pilots a basic guideline for safe distances. That will never factor for pilot judegement though.


----------



## superunknown (May 25, 2005)

Medvedya said:


> I heard those things were real death-traps.



The F-104 was a death trap, it had such nicknames as "widowmaker" "flying coffin". I personally think the B-52 is the best, long service, realiable (like all boeings), and can carry practically any payload, be it prescison or flatten everything underneath you!


----------



## mosquitoman (May 25, 2005)

I'd go for the Vulcan personally, B-52 as a back-up


----------



## superunknown (May 25, 2005)

I think the Vulcan is over rated, it was only ever used once in a "combat" situation, and as I recall it didn't even hit what it was supposed to. Where as the B-52 is tried and tested, maybe a bit long in the tooth these days but like the old saying goes, If it ain't broke don't fix it. Although I must admit the Vulcan certainly looked impressive, better looking than the lumbering Stratofortress anyway.


----------



## evangilder (May 25, 2005)

The Vulcan was also surprisingly manueverable for an airplane that size.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 25, 2005)

It looks amazing compared to the B-52 aswell


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

superunknown said:


> Medvedya said:
> 
> 
> > I heard those things were real death-traps.
> ...


*
NO WAY!* - The 104 was a great aircraft, the problem was there was no good transition training aircraft available during its initial implementation and of course the German press had a field day when the losses first started to occur. It was a new breed of aircraft as you had many European operators going from say an F-86 right into this aircraft. As different mission requirements were added to the aircraft, it airframe accepted those changes well. The Italians built the 104 into the late 80s and still operates a few. 

Some facts - although there were numerous losses with the 104, it actually had a loss rate lower than the F-100 and F-102 and once the operators of this aircraft enhanced their training, the loss rates really dropped significantly. The West German aircraft had an F-104 attrition rate of 30%, when they operated the F-84 their attrition rate was 36%. Eventually they got their attrition rate into the low teens! The Spanish Air Force operated the 104 for a number of years and never lost one! Understand the Spaniards were operating their F-104s as a fair weather fighter, the Germans, Canadians, Italians, etc. operated their as a strike aircraft, flew the thing in very adverse weather, way more than other operators. See these links about the F-104s ability: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:F-104_Starfighter
http://www.vectorsite.net/avf1043.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_17.html

The F-104 "Widowmaker" title was a myth - its reputation was cast by overzealous news media who knew little or nothing about aviation or the 104s operational environment! When retired its attrition rate was actually close to modern combat aircraft!


----------



## trackend (May 25, 2005)

B52 hands down for me it did what a bomber is meant to do deliver bombs and lots of em


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

The B-52 cannot be denied its place, I think the B-1Bs reputation will develop considering the initial bad press, it droped the majority of the heavy ordnance in Afghanistan from what I understand.

My father in law flew both aircraft, he loved the B-1 and always felt its full potential will never be accepted. His attachment to the plane lies in the fact he set and still holds several world speed and altitude records in the B1B. Here's the link for the FAI, his last name is Chamberlain.

http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/aircraft.asp?id=369


----------



## superunknown (May 25, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> superunknown said:
> 
> 
> > Medvedya said:
> ...



The 104 was not a great aircraft, from speaking to several pilots it was widely known that it was unstable, underpowered, difficult to fly and was called by several of them by the moniker "widowmaker" after they had finished flying them. It is not a myth, slightly over exaggerated maybe. None of the links you have given have been written by "experts" and even if they had be I'd be dubious if they tried to call the 104 a good aircraft. As many "experts" in the past have been wrong about several aircraft. Further evidence points to the fact that Starfighters didn't serve very long in any country as a front line fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

superunknown said:


> The 104 was not a great aircraft, from speaking to several pilots it was widely known that it was unstable, underpowered, difficult to fly and was called by several of them by the moniker "widowmaker" after they had finished flying them. It is not a myth, slightly over exaggerated maybe. None of the links you have given have been written by "experts" and even if they had be I'd be dubious if they tried to call the 104 a good aircraft. As many "experts" in the past have been wrong about several aircraft. Further evidence points to the fact that Starfighters didn't serve very long in any country as a front line fighter.



And I can tell you quite the opposite. I lived in the community where the aircraft was developed and manufactured, have spoken to several dozen pilots who flew this aircraft (including Canadian, German, Italian and Norwegian pilots) and they hardly had anything bad to say about the aircraft except that it was tricky to fly and required a good transistion background (T-38 time) to become proficient. Being underpowered, that's the first time I heard that!?! (Maybe compared to a Tornado or Phantom!) I helped crew Darryl Greenamyer before he crashed his 104 (for reasons I can not say) and I could assure you it was far from being underpowered! I had the opportunity to work on this aircraft briefly as a maintainer and crewchief and although no technical expert on the aircraft, I could tell you the only thing that passed it by was technology, its concept was already outdated by the time it came into full maturity. By that time the F-15, 16 and Tornado were being developed. And that wasn't the fault of the aircraft, but by the changing roles placed upon it by its operators.

As far as not serving long, the Canadians and Germans operated them for close to 20 years, the Italians continued to build them into the late 1980s. The aircraft basically served 3 generations, maybe not front line, but its longevity is quite evident!


----------



## superunknown (May 25, 2005)

So there was no problems with the engines then? or pitch limiter? or pilot's oxygen tanks? to name but a few. Just like the Tornado, it may have been "ahead" of its time, but it was still a nasty aircraft. I have spoken to pilots that flew it too, and they did refer to it as "widowmaker". 

"During its period of service with the German armed forces, about 270 German Starfighters were lost in accidents, just under 30 percent of the total force. About 110 pilots were killed. However, the attrition rate in German service was not all that much greater than that of the F-104 in service with several other air forces, including the United States Air Force. Canada had the unenviable record of losing over 50 percent of its 200 single-seat CF-104s in flying accidents."

Yes, a remarkable aircraft. Plus the Italians got rid of theirs last year.
We have had the Tornado for a long time also, but it is still a bag of spanners.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

superunknown said:


> So there was no problems with the engines then? or pitch limiter? or pilot's oxygen tanks? to name but a few.



Nope - We had ground aborts for the generator going off line, avionic problems and locking brakes, from what I could remember. Although the two we had weren't flown as hard as the military, we carried a bunch of research gear on them and they were heavily modified, so a lot of electronic things could go wrong.



superunknown said:


> Just like the Tornado, it may have been "ahead" of its time, but it was still a nasty aircraft. I have spoken to pilots that flew it too, and they did refer to it as "widowmaker".



And again, not from the pilots I met, these guys had "Mega" T-38, F-104 and F-4 time as well. Once you knew the aircraft, it was superior in some cases to the next generation of fighters that replaced it. I met guys from Germany that flew in squadrons where their 104s were replaced with the F-4 and this was very upsetting to them. (Personally I prefer the F-4) 



superunknown said:


> During its period of service with the German armed forces, about 270 German Starfighters were lost in accidents, just under 30 percent of the total force. About 110 pilots were killed. However, the attrition rate in German service was not all that much greater than that of the F-104 in service with several other air forces, including the United States Air Force. Canada had the unenviable record of losing over 50 percent of its 200 single-seat CF-104s in flying accidents."
> 
> Yes, a remarkable aircraft.



Yep - because the Germans and Canadians and other nations were operating them at low level, in poor weather through mountainous terrain. I don't know if you ever flew in an aircraft under instrument conditions, but its one of the most difficult things you're ever going to do, let alone at mach .99 at 10 feet AGL. And this was done using the old INU which by to days standards is like navigating to Mars with a pocket compass.

In addition, many of those accidents were due to training. Go from an F-86 into an F-104 without proper training and you will die very quickly! Go from an F-86 into an F-4 and you'll have the same results!

Yes it had a high attrition rate, but that rate diminished when the operators figured out how to train their pilots to properly operate them. It was the first mach 2 fighter with several additional roles thrown at it. For its time it served well and I could speak from hands-on experience it operated great!


----------



## superunknown (May 25, 2005)

I agree with you in many aspects, but I know for a fact the german's 104's were terrible. My dad served with the RAF as an aircraft technician and said that they were commonly refered to as "widowmakers". At one point 2 kreigsmarine 104's visited his base and both the pilots and groundcrew said that they were less than happy with them, the groundcrew listing various common faults with it and after looking around the Lightning's that my dad worked on described the 104's as poor.

The F-4 was a Phantastic (sorry) aircraft, we should never have got rid of ours. It was the last decent fighter the RAF had.

But anyway, it's a silly argument to get into. We agree to disagree, after all this is a bomber thread. Whats your favourite post WW2 bomber?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

superunknown said:


> But anyway, it's a silly argument to get into. We agree to disagree, after all this is a bomber thread. Whats your favourite post WW2 bomber?



Agree  - I got to go with the B-52 and B1B. See my post above. The B1B is a family icon (see my post above). When my father in law is around one thing we don't talk about is the B-2! He calls it a "fag bomber" (American Fag definition)


----------



## superunknown (May 25, 2005)

B-52 for me too, although the Rockwell B-1 is a sexy looking beast.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

superunknown said:


> B-52 for me too, although the Rockwell B-1 is a sexy looking beast.



That it is - I've never got to work around the B-1, but from what I understand its another maintenance beast as well!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2005)

The B-52 is great, but I like the B-36 too. Im not really much of a bomber man though, I like attack planes and Fighters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

The B-36 was cool as well!


----------



## BombTaxi (May 25, 2005)

Nice office!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> Nice office!



It looks like a Buck Rogers Space Ship!


----------



## evangilder (May 26, 2005)

It's like a friggin living room! It's huge!


----------



## BombTaxi (May 26, 2005)

I guess if you were flying from the US to Moscow on propellor power, you'd want a comfortable seat, cos it'd be a hell of a long ride!


----------



## evangilder (May 26, 2005)

Good point. I wish they had done the same for the C-130 though. AFter a few hours in those jump seats, my bacon was achin'.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 26, 2005)

The longest flight Ive ever done was cattle class in a 777 from Gatwick to Raleigh, NC. When I saw that pic of the B36 nose, I started thinking how much I'd have loved one of those big armchairs for that trip! I couldnt walk when I got off the damn thing!


----------



## evangilder (May 26, 2005)

My longest flight, which happened to be in a C-130 went from Mildenhall in the UK, to greenland, then Virginia, then San Francisco, then Hawaii, then Japan and finally to Korea. UGH!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2005)

evangilder said:


> My longest flight, which happened to be in a C-130 went from Mildenhall in the UK, to greenland, then Virginia, then San Francisco, then Hawaii, then Japan and finally to Korea. UGH!


----------



## evangilder (May 26, 2005)

That's about right, FBJ!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

We got to give some credit to the B-47. This aircraft was actually very aerobatic and faster than the fighters of its day!


----------



## evangilder (May 27, 2005)

My dad took a picture of a B-47 years ago at an open house where he was stationed. I will have to see if I can dig that out. He was at KI Sawyer AFB, 59-63.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2005)

POST IT! B-47s Rock!


----------



## evangilder (May 28, 2005)

I will when I find it. Our place is in shambles right now. We are moving in three weeks, so it's chaos here.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2005)

Thanks Evan, I share your pain, moving SUCKS!


----------



## evangilder (May 28, 2005)

Yep, it certainly does. I have been doing things around the house this morning. Patching, touch-up, minor plumbing... I am tired already and it's only noon!


----------



## trackend (May 28, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I will when I find it. Our place is in shambles right now. We are moving in three weeks, so it's chaos here.


You have my sympathies Evan, they say next too divorce and bereavement its the next most stressful thing that can happen to you ( I don't think who ever said that has had someone taking pot shots at them). Anyway when we moved we where only in for 4 hours and we had to reload the truck and move out again because somebody in the chain didn't have the right money in the bank and they had done a fiddle. We had to wait for another day then do it all again it was a bloody nightmare.


----------



## evangilder (May 28, 2005)

Yikes! We just closed on selling our townhouse and now we are renting back from the new owner until our new place is ready. Three weeks and counting.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2005)

Good Luck!


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 28, 2005)

Bon chance.


----------



## trackend (May 29, 2005)

Are you moving far Evan? I bet you make sure the coffee making kit is the first item off though if your neighbours are any good they usually come round with a brew and a wad don't they.


----------



## evangilder (May 29, 2005)

About 10-15 miles from where I am now. But yes, the coffee pot and coffee makings will be going in the car with me!


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 14, 2006)

JU-88!!!!!! whatever u say its da best
Seig heil


----------



## evangilder (Mar 14, 2006)

As the best _post-war_ bomber?


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 14, 2006)

The fact he greets us with a "seig heil" makes me wonder about this guy.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 15, 2006)

Agreed, syscom.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 17, 2006)

The Fuhrer said:


> JU-88!!!!!! whatever u say its da best
> Seig heil



First of all learn your facts first. The Ju-88 in nost a *POST WAR BOMBER*!! Read the heading of the of the topic!!!!!!!!

2nd of all coming from a German here, you saying Sieg Heil is a disgrace upon yourself and my people!!!! Grow up!!! Der Fuehrer was an evil man and if he is someone that you emulate get the hell out of my forum!!!!

*Hitler wahr der untermensch und so bist du wenn du ihn liebst!!!!*


----------



## Twitch (Mar 19, 2006)

BUF proved itself for the past 50 years and will continue for many more. Unlike most other so called bombers it forged its reputation in combat and before that as THE Cold War deterrent to the Russkies.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2006)

my mistake i didnt read the thread...rite best post war bomber, B1b or maybe F15E, as light strike...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2006)

The Buff is the best post war bomber for the reasons that Twitch said.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 19, 2006)

and it never dropped a nuke in anger... it is the best post war bomber (im not being sarcastic)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2006)

It has allways done what it was designed to do (besides the nuke thing) exeptionally and that is why it still used today.


----------



## R988 (Apr 4, 2006)

I always liked the B-47. RB-47s also did a lot of recon over the USSR. Taking over from the B-36, some very interesting stories on the subject around, but I think I have posted them on here elsewhere.

The B-52 is probably the better all round aircraft though, being the replacement.

The Vulcans longest bombing mission has since been eclipsed by B-52s in desert storm. The Vulcan mission was largely to dampen the morale of the argies and wasn't particularly effective, being only one aircraft and such a long mission.



> The Persian Gulf War involved the longest strike mission in the history of aerial warfare when B-52s took off from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, launched conventional air launched cruise missiles and returned to Barksdale—a 35 hour, non-stop combat mission.



They may even have broken it again with B-2s or B-52s in Afghanistan or GW2.

The Vulcan does however have a particularly low radar signature, and it did change it's mission profile from hi alt freefall nuclear bomb delivery to low level strike standoff cruise missile carrier and later conventional weapons. It was not as versatile in as many roles as the B-52 however.


----------



## MacArther (Apr 13, 2006)

Avro Lincoln, how can you not like it? I know Lanc would!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2006)

Good bomber but did it really compare to a B-52?


----------



## MacArther (Apr 13, 2006)

No, but what really does except other US made stuff?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

The B52 has to take the cake on this one. Simply for its service in the cold war, Vietnam, GF1 and GF2.

The Russian "Bear" bomber also deserves some accolades. If only for its use in the ASW role.


----------

