[FulcrumPilot]

Mig-17

[starman]

EDIT: Better. Links work now. Very nice.

Mike

[xi_hyperon]

FP, Thanks for fixing your links.

On topic: I always preferred the F-86 myself.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

FP, Thanks for fixing your links.

On topic: I always preferred the F-86 myself.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircra...r/F86Sabre.jpg

Hear this from a usenet posting:

http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=mig...net&rnum=1

"Having flown both, and being the owner of one, I must say that
although the Hunter is certainly an elegent airplane, the MiG-17F
absolutely flies rings around it in EVERY aspect of it's performance.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Hunter. But the MiG-17 is the
pinnicle of subsonic/transonic fighter design. For pure maneuvering
ability, it simply cannot be beaten.

For a first generation aircraft, the MiG-17 is certainly the best
day VFR fighter that was ever built. It has stunning turning
performance (you really need to see it to believe it..) and
excellent acceleration and climb rates. Like all Russian
designs it was not intended to project power, or provide long
range escort, and has the absolute minimum fuel to allow it to
do its job (far more fuel than MiG-21, though...). It is VERY simple
as well, with nitrogen blow-down of flaps and gear. It is the only
fighter in its class that can suffer both a complete electrical and hydraulic
failure and still be flown and fought with, and come home to a normal
landing. It is well armed, has a good gyro gunsite, reliable ejection
seat, fair range (1+30 hours), high thrust/weight ratio, high subsonic
speeds (1.1 in a VERY shallow dive), totally benign handling with
no tendency to the problems that the MiG-15 had, and rock-solid
slow flight performance in the traffic pattern. it is heavially armored as
well, and pilot protection is superb. Visibility is excellent, with a
very good rear view periscope. All in all is is well balanced and
very reliable as well as efficient.


The Folland Gnat has about the same performance at the cost of
a wildly more complex design. The F-86 cannot even come close.
The Hunter cannot come close in turn rate or climb rate. None of
its contemporaries is in the same performance league. Every one
requires far more maintenance, is less reliable from a MTBF standpoint,
and none performs as well. "

[His Dudeness]

A MiG??? C'mon, get real. Sukhoi builds a much better aircraft than whatever Mikoyan can crank out. That Su-37 is EVIL. I would be scared of that no matter what I was flying.

[euphras]

P38 lightning

[iLikebeer]

I think most all warbirds are pretty sweet. Even though the MiG-17 is more capable, I love the MiG-15. That thing is amazing for the time it was made. Besides that, the ME 262 is pretty sweet. I got to sit in the one at the Dayton AF Museum, that thing was seriously ahead of its time, along with the F15, P38, P51, P47, C172, SR71, F117, F111, B52, F4U, XB70, and of course the

[residentEvil]

here is mine:

[pman68]

I like this one:

[ghporter]

The biggest problem the Soviets ever had with any of their jets, and the MiG-17 in particular, is that they were wonderfully well designed and built, but the political process got so far into their pilot training that actual airmanship was secondary to "Sovietness." It totally destroyed their ability to dominate the air with the -17, as shown by the fact that an F-51 (the post-WWII designation of the P-51) shot down a MiG-15 in a one-on-one fight-and the -15 should have wiped up the sky with the Mustang. The Soviets gave up the basics of aerial combat for politics, pure and simple. The F-86 was a late attempt to match the MiG, and even though it didn't really match its specs, the more "liberally" trained USAF pilots siezed and kept control of the air over Korea.

Here's my favorite-the RF-4C: This one flying out of Bergstrom AFB, TX, is piloted by the commander of the 45th AMU, and is in the late camo pattern. While I was there, they were all still in the "European Green" color scheme.

Edited to clarify something about air combat...

[wdlove]

Very nice plane pictures, thanks to everyone for posting.

[bubblewrap]

The MiG 15's canopy would fog up in a dive, rendering the pilot blind.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Here's my favorite-the RF-4C: This one flying out of Bergstrom AFB, TX, is piloted by the commander of the 45th AMU, and is in the late camo pattern. While I was there, they were all still in the "European Green" color scheme.

I don't know if NASA still flies them or what, but I see F4s (with the Wild Weasel nose, it looks like) occasionally down here in Houston. Could be some stationed at Ellington. These were also known as the "Flying Brick".

[bubblewrap]

The old Beech 18 has to be my favorite.

[alligator]

I like the X-29 or possibly a Corsair.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by finboy

I don't know if NASA still flies them or what, but I see F4s (with the Wild Weasel nose, it looks like) occasionally down here in Houston. Could be some stationed at Ellington. These were also known as the "Flying Brick".

Well they certainly glide like bricks! There are quite a few F4s around, most of them are painted with orange accents and are designated QF4s-they're target drones. Slowly, they are being destroyed in the name of better airmanship in the newest generation of pilots. I hope it's worth it.

[macaddict0001]

ghporter: speaking of other regrettable soviet decisions, the space program. they had it all a knock-off of the space shuttle that was safer and fully automated. Then the ussr fell apart funding was cut to less than 1000th of what it was. only one of the 20 planned to be built had ever been in a test flight, the project was abandoned because the roof of the hanger fell on it.

[MilkmanDan]

Japanese: First to build an actually air craft carrier and have decent planes on it.

[Lancer409]

F22! F35 in all it's variants. F14 Tomcat, and the Thunderbolt/Warthog.


MiGs and Sukhois are sweet too. I wonder when we get to see the next generation of Russian Aircraft.

[chabig]

XB-70
DeHavilland Beaver

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

ghporter: speaking of other regrettable soviet decisions, the space program. they had it all a knock-off of the space shuttle that was safer and fully automated. Then the ussr fell apart funding was cut to less than 1000th of what it was. only one of the 20 planned to be built had ever been in a test flight, the project was abandoned because the roof of the hanger fell on it.

Well it was supposed to be safer. With the corners the USSR cut on so many things, whether it really was safer is debatable. It DID use a liquid fuel booster system, which gave it the possibility of being safer.

As for being automated, there's nothing manual about the Space Shuttle's launch, and little manual about landing if the crew wants it that way. Remember, that automated system was based on their Soyuz technology, and the ISS crew not too long ago had to take manual control of a Progress supply ship (an unmanned Soyuz) to keep it from running into the space station!

It comes down to what we know about their project coming from a Soviet PR flack. I'd have to see proof of it being better to completely agree, though it did hold that possibility.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Well they certainly glide like bricks! There are quite a few F4s around, most of them are painted with orange accents and are designated QF4s-they're target drones. Slowly, they are being destroyed in the name of better airmanship in the newest generation of pilots. I hope it's worth it.

For those of you in the Houston neighborhood, Johnson Space Center is having a (rare) open house on Saturday, from 9 to 5. Also, they'll have shuttle busses to Ellington Field to see NASA operations there. Exciting.

Read about it here:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/home/index.html

[bubblewrap]

The plane I fly:

[macaddict0001]

yes. but the soyuz has proved indispensable and is having less problems that space shuttles.