AD&D1 is like a B-17

[Quasqueton]

I prefer biplane simulations & enjoy a good P-51 or Hellcat simulator. Anything with a jet engine starts losing my interest.

That's because jets normally are just flight simulators. For real flight, you must have a prop.

-- PropHead

 

[Quasqueton]

I'm 26, by the way, so I have actually had a chance to turn some wrenches on newer models, as well. You would be surprised at the weaknesses, some you would never expect.

What is it with the newer models bashing? Sure, even the newer model planes have weaknesses -- all planes do and always have. The newer planes have different tolerances than the older stuff did, but that's because they are used for more roles than the old crafts were used for. Attack craft now can be used for altitude bombing, ground attack, and fighter engagement. The old era stuff was pretty specialized, and so didn't get rocked about as much jumping from one role to another. This ability to change roles as needed is one of the greatest strengths of the newer models. You just call the natural wear a weakness because you can't understand the new strategic philosophies.

-- Raptor

 

[Quasqueton]

B-52. Big, loud, lumbering, and destined to serve longer than those things that "superseded" it.

Well, they were already paid for, might as well use them. If they got shot down (like the newer stealth bombers wouldn't), it was no expensive loss. More dignified way of loosing the machines than just piling them in a junkyard, where they actually belonged.

-- NinjaPlanes

 

[Slife]

P-51 guys didin't pipe up about how the F22 can't fly, "It's just a rocket that the pilot just hangs on to for dear life."

Mostly because that was the MiG-25.

 

[Quasqueton]

EA-6B Prowler- Light, fast, and capable of doing everything newer models can, but louder and more impressive, and highly dependent upon a pilot's individual skill

QFT!

This was a much better plane than the new Star Wars black stuff. The Prowler is what made any aircraft near it stealthed. It could be used today, but no, the new guys like their black batplanes. Can't let a pilot and crew do any work, got to have the computer.

-- PhantomPhan

 

[Quasqueton]

They don't because airplane technology has improved. It's an undeniable fact.

No, it is an easily deniable myth. Technology has improved, but just because you dump a bunch of electronics into a plane doesn't mean the aircraft is improved.

-- Seat of the Pants

 

[Quasqueton]

But I will tell you, the weaknesses in modern airplanes are really very interesting, particularly when it comes to vibrations. Most chassis and cabin screws on the new Joint Strike Fighter need to be checked after every flight, something older planes don't really need.

Just because screws (and more to be thorough) need to be checked after each flight doesn't mean the screws are a weakness. All plane parts should be checked after a flight, for all planes in all eras. They weren't deligent in earlier eras, and many planes fell out of the sky for the poor mainenance. I'm glad maint crews now check everything -- it keeps the planes flying at top performance (a performance level, I might add, that is far above what old era planes were capable of even imagining).

-- EagleStrike

 

[Quasqueton]

the cutting edge, where the F-22 seems to be.

The Raptor is called "cutting edge" for the top brass to have something to brag about in the latest era. It is such a dismal failure as an actual war machine. (I won't even call it a war "bird" -- it's more like a war brick.) The P-51 Mustang has proved itself in actual battle, and with proper attention, can continue flying and performing today. The 'stang was cutting edge in WWII, and it is still the performance package that the F-22 is claimed to mimick. Will any F***ed-up-22s still be flying in 10 years? The 'stang is still flying 60 years later. Modern "cutting edge" planes have an operational life expectancy about as long as a Twinkie on my countertop. All immediate sparkle with no long-term bang.

-- D-Day Stripes

 

[Quasqueton]

Probably going to add fuel to the fire but the Vietnam era planes were inferior WRT dogfighting like the F-4 Phantom - no guns, only missiles. Not that winning dogfights without guns was impossible but Snoopy probably had a better chance at shooting down the Red Baron.

Yeah, the prop-driven planes like the Skyraider were better for dogfights than the jets. They thought that just shooving in jet engines and strapping on missiles would make a better airplane. They lost the actual skill of dogfighting when they moved out of the prop-crafts. The Vietnam era F-4s are the perfect example of what happened to fighter aircraft skills with the change to jet and missiles. There hasn't been any real fighter planes since the F4U Corsairs and the F8F Bearcat.

-- F<X

 

[Nikosandros]

No, it is an easily deniable myth. Technology has improved, but just because you dump a bunch of electronics into a plane doesn't mean the aircraft is improved.

-- Seat of the Pants

Are you kidding me?

The purpose of fighter planes is to achieve air superiority, not to entertain the pilot.

Or maybe you think that having Mig-19 in your air force is the same as having F-15 and F-16. You might want to ask Egypt ans Syria about that...