Page 11 of 53 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 529
Thanks Tree48Thanks

Thread: F-35 Where do we go from here?

  1. #101
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    Stealth is wonderful. One of the videos had the designer of the A10 talking about how the F35 is useless for ground support roles like is needed in the mddle east. Little loiter time, to fragile, way to expensive to risk. Simple ground fire from small arms would kill it if it flew to low. Trying to make a plane do everything is not realistic. We are likely stuck with it. Less units made means higher costs for each. I hope it never has to do battle with other 5th generation enemies. I hope it works out.
    I love the A 10 but now it is getting too perilous to fly close ground support. The military has said as much. From what I have read they are not using attack helis much either.

    Could you imagine an american pilot being burned alive.

  2. #102
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,633
    Thanks
    264

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaragunudgeyon View Post
    Their max takeoff weights are nearly the same... 477000 lbs for the B2 and 488000 for the B52. and the 52 has 4 more engines.
    The B-1B can carry about 50% more ordnance than the B-52 and is 50% faster at low level.

    Though in practice both bombers in these kind of missions today carry about 40,000 to 48,000 lbs. of weapons. Because the B-1 normally carries ordnance ONLY in their forward two bomb bays (they have three). The B-52 has two bays as well.

  3. #103
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    The B-1B can carry about 50% more ordnance than the B-52 and is 50% faster at low level.

    Though in practice both bombers in these kind of missions today carry about 40,000 to 48,000 lbs. of weapons. Because the B-1 normally carries ordnance ONLY in their forward two bomb bays (they have three). The B-52 has two bays as well.
    The Lancer has a max speed of 830 mph. Supersonic, yes, but I thought it was faster than that.

  4. #104
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    26,573
    Thanks
    6750

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaragunudgeyon View Post
    Yeah.. it is too HIGH. I was mistaken.
    B-17G:
    Empty Weight: 38,000lb
    Loaded weight: 65,500lb
    Max Bomb Load: 9,600lb
    Range: 1200 miles with 6,000lb
    And without googling, I am guessing that it was a British bomber that had the biggest payload of WWII, bigger than B-17 or B-24.

    Lancaster, I think.

    It may have been surpassed by the B-29 late in the war.

    Of course the B-29 carried the biggest explosive power, no doubt about that.

    The Atom Bomb: "Made in America, tested in Japan"

  5. #105
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,633
    Thanks
    264

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaragunudgeyon View Post
    The Lancer has a max speed of 830 mph. Supersonic, yes, but I thought it was faster than that.
    They removed the variable inlet ramps from the engine nacelles for stealth purposes.

    Reinstall the ramps, and even the B-1B can easily make more than Mach 2.2

    Also at low level, the B-1B can still exceed 640 mph while the B-52 flies at 405 at low level.
    Thanks from Zaragunudgeyon

  6. #106
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    And without googling, I am guessing that it was a British bomber that had the biggest payload of WWII, bigger than B-17 or B-24.

    Lancaster, I think.

    It may have been surpassed by the B-29 late in the war.

    Of course the B-29 carried the biggest explosive power, no doubt about that.

    The Atom Bomb: "Made in America, tested in Japan"
    Yea.. the Lancaster could carry a bomb or bombs weighing 22000 lbs. and the max takeoff weight is 10000 lbs more than the 17... but it had smaller guns and lighter ammo than the 17 ... because as you know the 17 did day time bombing and the Lanc did night time bombing. Makes one wonder why they even DID daytime bombing!?

  7. #107
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    26,573
    Thanks
    6750

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaragunudgeyon View Post
    Yea.. the Lancaster could carry a bomb or bombs weighing 22000 lbs. and the max takeoff weight is 10000 lbs more than the 17... but it had smaller guns and lighter ammo than the 17 ... because as you know the 17 did day time bombing and the Lanc did night time bombing. Makes one wonder why they even DID daytime bombing!?
    Supposedly for much greater accuracy.

    The Brits decided early on not to worry about accuracy, and decided to just bomb the German population back into the stone age.

    The US actually tried to hit specific targets, mostly anyway.

    Lancaster, like so many other Brit airplanes then and in later years were massively ugly.

    Ever see a Nimrod?

    Very appropriately named.

  8. #108
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Supposedly for much greater accuracy.

    The Brits decided early on not to worry about accuracy, and decided to just bomb the German population back into the stone age.

    The US actually tried to hit specific targets, mostly anyway.

    Lancaster, like so many other Brit airplanes then and in later years were massively ugly.

    Ever see a Nimrod?

    Very appropriately named.
    They did good on their fighters though.. .. they were pretty.

    I like the look of the Lancaster.. very ominous, dark. A death machine.

    B 24 is ugly to me.

  9. #109
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Supposedly for much greater accuracy.

    The Brits decided early on not to worry about accuracy, and decided to just bomb the German population back into the stone age.

    The US actually tried to hit specific targets, mostly anyway.

    Lancaster, like so many other Brit airplanes then and in later years were massively ugly.

    Ever see a Nimrod?

    Very appropriately named.
    Can't really blame the brits for that.. in light of how the Germans tried to destroy them.

  10. #110
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    26,573
    Thanks
    6750

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaragunudgeyon View Post
    They did good on their fighters though.. .. they were pretty.

    I like the look of the Lancaster.. very ominous, dark. A death machine.

    B 24 is ugly to me.
    To me too.

    So many people love the B-17 and dismiss the B-24, but I think the B-24 could carry more bomb weight, fly a little farther, and faster.

    And I think more B-24's were manufactured.

    B-17's are more beloved because they starred in TV shows, and movies, and they were much prettier.

Page 11 of 53 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed