Global Aircraft Forum Help -  Privacy Policy -  Interactive Content Guidelines -  Legal Notices
Global Aircraft Welcome, Guest!   [Log In]  |   [Sign Up]  |   [Return Home]  

GAC Forum

RSS Feed Message Directories
Create New Topic
   RSS Feed General Aviation
   RSS Feed Subject - Aircraft that should return to the air  [Topic ID# 32]Messages 1 - 10 of 32  

Subject: Aircraft that should return to the air
Post ID# 130
Message Number 1
Date Posted: 02 August 2004, 7:35:28 PM

Hey everyone what aircraft do you think should return to the air.
Heres my list: SR-71 Blackbird, RAH-66 Comanche, F-104 Starfighter,
YF-23 Blackwidow II, C-123 Provider, C-141 Starlifter*, F-4 Phantom,
B-47 Stratojet, B-36 Peacemaker, F-20 Tigershark and F-101 Voodoo.
What do you guys think

Subject: Aircraft that should return to the air
Post ID# 132
Message Number 2
Date Posted: 08 August 2004, 10:00:06 PM

i think it should be the F-4 Phantom, OV-10 bronco, F-105 Thunderchief.

Subject: Aircraft that should return to the air
Post ID# 134
Message Number 3
Date Posted: 08 August 2004, 11:08:40 PM

Full fledged agreement here. There's an endless list of still non-obsolete aircraft taken out of service and being scrapped that don't even need to be updated that much and aren't as expensive as they say to keep in service. I hate politics.

Subject: Aircraft that should return to the air
Post ID# 141
Message Number 4
Date Posted: 15 August 2004, 2:17:38 PM

obsolete: 1 no longer in use: an obsolete word. 2 outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete locomotive.

the b36 was superceded by the b47 and by the time it was completely removed from service, the b52. both of these were a generation past the b36--swept wing high subsonic jets with mid-air refueling capabilities. they could also carry the same or more in terms of payload. the b36 was essentially a pre-ww2 design that didn't fly until after the war ended. it was an anachronism.

the sr71 is a great aircraft. however it is 5 times more expensive to operate than the u2. on the other hand it only takes 1/4 the time to fly a mission. its special capabilities are no longer needed however. satellites have taken over the recce mission especially over extremely hostile territory--china, russia, etc. the u2 is also much more mission adaptable. wing pods with extra sensors can be added.

the f4 phantom ii was replaced by the f14 and f15 in the navy and usaf respectively. both of these aircraft are much more capable in every way in comparison to the f4. also of mention is the fact that they were designed to operate much better in the subsonic--especially in a dogfighting scenerio. the f4 after all was not much more than a flying brick at low speed.

the yf23 was deemed not as good as what has become the f22. in that fly off many criteria were looked at.

the c123 was not nearly as capable as the c130. talk to anybody who deals with airlift and they will tell you that anywhere you can put a dc3 down you can put a c130 down. and it can carry so much more than the old c123.

usaf still has some c141 aircraft in its inventory. they have mostly been replaced by the c17. the c17 can carry much more cargo and land it on shorter and rougher strips.

the f20 was a great follow on to the f5. however a few crashes during the showings to many countries all but doomed it. the last nail in the coffin was that usaf didn't buy any. so all the prospect customers decided to buy the f16 instead. the f16 is a much more capable aircraft and can carry a lot more external stores.

the f101 voodoo was a great post-korea interceptor. by vietnam it had been eclipsed by better aircraft like the f4.

the f105 was nothing more than a high speed bomber. it was not designed to tangle with other fighters. as such it was inferior to the f4 in many respects. and by far it was inferior to the f15. it was also lost in greater numbers over vietnam than any other fixed wing aircraft.

Subject: Aircraft that should return to the air
Post ID# 143
Message Number 5
Date Posted: 17 August 2004, 11:32:18 PM

By non-obsolete I meant that they were still capable of handling jobs (not in front line active service that is). A large number of aircraft still have a good 2 or so decades left until they really start to break down. I think it'd be cool to just fly what life is left in em before they hit the heap for good.

Subject: Aircraft that should return to the air
Post ID# 199
Message Number 6
Date Posted: 24 October 2004, 10:06:49 AM

a few months ago i did come up with a theory, which is kinda a joke theory but has some points to it. we should bring back old WWII planes. these modern planes our days are completely idiotproof. the missiles rely on radar, heat etc. well if you bring back the old prop planes, they had no (significant) radar, and not enough engine heat. so they would not register on any shoot list. and the modern fighters would zoom straight past them when trying to get them with the cannon

Subject: Aircraft that should return to the air
Post ID# 205
Message Number 7
Date Posted: 24 October 2004, 10:38:30 AM

Good point that is a pretty good idea

Subject: Aircraft that should return to the air
Post ID# 232
Message Number 8
Date Posted: 03 January 2005, 4:19:43 PM

There's only one problem with bringing those planes back though. not enough fuel to fly long enough to do anything!!!!!!!!!!. so there for, it would only be good enough for an air show. If you gonna make suggestion like that, at least make it somewhat intelligent

Subject: Aircraft that should return to the air
Post ID# 237
Message Number 9
Date Posted: 06 January 2005, 7:26:36 PM

ok by the way yes a piston engine develops a lot of heat. have you ever touched anything under your hood after driving for a couple hours? engines get hot. heat seaking missiles will lock on to the heat signatures from old airplanes such as the dc3--still flown in africa and shot at wish such weapons as stingers.

while it is hard for modern fighter jets to fly in the 200-300kt speed range, they can by getting dirty--flaps and gear down. and with the radar giving the target's speed they can slow down in order to engage.

piston engine planes have no place in modern aerial combat. they are not like diesel submarines which have continously improved over the past century. those boats still have a place in modern combat.

Subject: Aircraft that should return to the air
Post ID# 262
Message Number 10
Date Posted: 20 January 2005, 12:59:52 AM

The XB-70, B-58, B-29, SR-71, P-38 & F-100. Why? For no good reason other than they are cool-as-hell!

   of 4 pages )   [Next]   Last >>

Search the forum:

You must be logged in to post on this forum! Please Log in now

Global Aircraft Forum and faces are
Copyright © 2024 The Global Aircraft Organization

GAC Forum v.1,7,2