AD&D1 is like a B-17
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Breakdaddy
First Post
As an aircraft enthusiast, I applaud your use of that excellent artwork in your post.
Quasqueton
First Post
From your point of view (as aircraft enthusiasts), do you see anything offensive or insulting about the analogy?
None of the planes I showed for the various editions/eras are considered failures or bad designs. In fact, most of them were considered among the best of their era. If offense or insult was intended, I would have shown planes of poor reputation, performance, or design, or burning, crashed, or rusted-out planes.
Quasqueton
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Quas, this thread is a hoot 'n' a holler.
Thanks for putting it together - and I think the analogy is pretty darn appropriate.
Because, even though it doesn't go as fast or as far as a modern airplane, the Wright Flyer - the first of its kind - is a thing of beauty and innovation, initially constructed by gifted amateurs with a true passion for discovering flight.
I wonder if, however, you forgot an entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Montgolfier_Balloon.JPG
Chainmail?
Thanks for putting it together - and I think the analogy is pretty darn appropriate.
Because, even though it doesn't go as fast or as far as a modern airplane, the Wright Flyer - the first of its kind - is a thing of beauty and innovation, initially constructed by gifted amateurs with a true passion for discovering flight.
I wonder if, however, you forgot an entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Montgolfier_Balloon.JPG
Chainmail?
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Hence its being built in at least 4 (?) seperate incarnations intended to specialize/fulfill distinct roles for the various branches. The British and USMC are the ones interested in the V-STOL version. Can't speak to the British thinking but my understanding of the USMC desire for that capability is the complete lack of need for airstrips for forward deployment. Their use will be primarily close infantry support. The USAF on the other hand is more about establishing and maintaining air superiority so they don't want or need V-STOL. The USN deploys from carriers and that brings particular design demands. They don't need the S-VTOL but they DO need landing gear from HELL to absorb the destructive impact of carrier traps which are not so much landings as controlled crashes. The Air Force does not need such landing gear impact absorbtion and so can sacrifice that weight for more conventional landing gear and greater payload, etc.BroccoliRage said:
Or so I'm led to understand from what small bits I've read on the subject.
Well the older they get the more they do cost in terms of maintenance and overhauls, yes? The F-14 has been completely replaced by the F-18, just as the F-14 came into service as a replacement for the F-4. The F-4 was not entirely useless either - but newer planes generally mean faster, more efficient, able to use the latest weaponry (the F-14's large size and weight was due to its radar and ability to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix). I don't think even the National Guard still flys the F-14 and a quick look at Wikipedia says that Iran is the only Air Force using them (and the only foreign power they were ever sold to anyway, and that was obviously prior to the overthrow of the Shah). The B-52 is still flying because it's still economical to do so and fills a role in the types of wars we see today, but also because they've been retrofitted (most visibly with carbon-fiber wings). There's no need to continue to retrofit and overhaul planes like the F-14 if there's a complete replacement entering inventory.
BroccoliRage
First Post
Wel, the national guard NEVER (at least not for any extended period of time, to the best of my knowledge) flew the Tom Cat; it's purely a Naval aircraft.
I think you missed my point however. V-STOL on fighters is unneccescary, particularly USMC fighters that do, might I add, launch from Aircraft carrier (Harriers were certainly launching during my hitch on the U.S.S. Enterprise). And with amphibious assault aircaraft carrier such as the U.S.S. Wasp, the need is even further lessened when one considers such a vehicle being used in conjunction with the Osprey, a beautiful and efficient bird in it's own right.
The Tomcat was only recently phased out, and was very active rightup until the last flight. It was also the fastest plane in the armed forces, outdoing even the raptor in speed. It was outclassed in maneuverability, however, by the Hornet and Raptor.
Aside from pointy-noses, however, I've always been far more interested in workhorse birds. I specialized in the SH-60 SeaHawk (naval BlackHawk) F/S/R/B, The S-3B Viking, The P-3C Orion, The C-130K/J Hercules, and EA6-B Prowler while in the Navy. Most of those planes I gained experience with while I was attached to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron One (VX-1) in NAS Pax River, MD. Before my injury, I was actually enrolled for unmanned flight pilot school upon transferring to my next duty station.
I think you missed my point however. V-STOL on fighters is unneccescary, particularly USMC fighters that do, might I add, launch from Aircraft carrier (Harriers were certainly launching during my hitch on the U.S.S. Enterprise). And with amphibious assault aircaraft carrier such as the U.S.S. Wasp, the need is even further lessened when one considers such a vehicle being used in conjunction with the Osprey, a beautiful and efficient bird in it's own right.
The Tomcat was only recently phased out, and was very active rightup until the last flight. It was also the fastest plane in the armed forces, outdoing even the raptor in speed. It was outclassed in maneuverability, however, by the Hornet and Raptor.
Aside from pointy-noses, however, I've always been far more interested in workhorse birds. I specialized in the SH-60 SeaHawk (naval BlackHawk) F/S/R/B, The S-3B Viking, The P-3C Orion, The C-130K/J Hercules, and EA6-B Prowler while in the Navy. Most of those planes I gained experience with while I was attached to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron One (VX-1) in NAS Pax River, MD. Before my injury, I was actually enrolled for unmanned flight pilot school upon transferring to my next duty station.
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
Man in the Funny Hat said:
The RN wants JSF/VTOL because they don't "do" big carriers.
2¢ & Flames at the Forge ?
Let me see, if we really wanted to compare editions, we'd need to state the blatantly obvious:
- were it not for the amount of material that keeps getting published for D&D / d20, I would likely NOT play 3.5, because...
- everybody likes to play a vibration version that keeps getting goodies and support
- if Hackmaster had gotten a license to do material OTHER than parody, I would likely have reverted to 1e via Hackmaster; this was such a concern, in fact, that their license specifically forbids them from doing serious material
- no one can tell me that 3e/3.5 is quicker and lighter than 1e / 2e. I started with 1e, and 2e (save for latter books) changed a FEW things but remained true to the original.
- given Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides, and UA, 1e was complete and compelx enough and allowed for enough tailoring if you felt like it.
- 2e did modify my 1e game to some degree... Maybe even to the point of calling it 1.5?
Having said all that, the best aircraft comparison for 3.5 is the B-57... Huge, expensive, unwieldy... Not elegant. Not well suited for written adventures. Not particularly well suited for roleplaying. But, the show must go on!
Let me see, if we really wanted to compare editions, we'd need to state the blatantly obvious:
- were it not for the amount of material that keeps getting published for D&D / d20, I would likely NOT play 3.5, because...
- everybody likes to play a vibration version that keeps getting goodies and support
- if Hackmaster had gotten a license to do material OTHER than parody, I would likely have reverted to 1e via Hackmaster; this was such a concern, in fact, that their license specifically forbids them from doing serious material
- no one can tell me that 3e/3.5 is quicker and lighter than 1e / 2e. I started with 1e, and 2e (save for latter books) changed a FEW things but remained true to the original.
- given Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides, and UA, 1e was complete and compelx enough and allowed for enough tailoring if you felt like it.
- 2e did modify my 1e game to some degree... Maybe even to the point of calling it 1.5?
Having said all that, the best aircraft comparison for 3.5 is the B-57... Huge, expensive, unwieldy... Not elegant. Not well suited for written adventures. Not particularly well suited for roleplaying. But, the show must go on!
BroccoliRage
First Post
OH, no....
::mans the AAC guns::
::mans the AAC guns::
Quasqueton
First Post
See? That's how one would do an insult analogy.
Quasqueton
Similar Threads
