ITT: aircraft nobody likes or cares about
>>65024548i'd nut on it. i like his triangular cheeks. good for angular plapping
>>65024548I lost 9+ of them in a Canadian deck in Wargame RD. I was facing my brother who was playing as either the USSR or the GDR (cant remember, been like 10+ years at this point) who just had Mig-23s. Out of the 12 I had 9 were lost to Mig fucking 23s. Still won the match because I did alright on the ground and thankfully he had no A2G in his deck so despite him having air dominance it basically meant nothing. Fucking Voodoo with falcons, never again.
>>65024584Why did you expect anything different? The MiG-23 was a decade newer than the F-101 in an era where mere months made aircraft go from cutting edge to obsolete.
>>65024590Because I put more points into my ground units and I needed *something* in my air slot. Plus we were doing theme builds and both of us were playing with pre-85 decks and iirc I didn't even have the Syrup Hornet available anyhow.
>>65024548Somebody on Boeing’s NGAD team liked it enough to put Voodoo II on the program patch. Which of you read into it implies they probably built a lambda wing
>>65024548It looks better than a lot of aircrafts, honestly OP, you are a fag
T-tail was cursed.
>>65024804My fucking retard weeb ass thought you were doing the anime stutter.
>>65024565the little fuel tanks on hte wings will never not be funny, peak 50s
>>65024565>: FJ-1the wingtip tanks were a popular design choice in early jets, i guess they couldnt figure out how to fit the fuel tanks on the frame or some security reason .
>>65025112>the little fuel tanksCome here and say it again to my Falcons, you brat
>>65024548Pretty much the entirety of the VVS-PVO and its historical lineup. If it weren't for those 2 Korean 747s no one would have remembered it even existed.
>>65024548the entire soviet airforce from the 30s, all comparably old designs that was made obsolete at the start of the war and its only use was to make german air kills astronomical. airplanes changed so fast in that era that a 10 year old design was obsolete and made useless by comparisson today f16 are bombing iran daily and those are planes that first flew in the 70s
>>65025115Things trend.
>>65025115It's an easier modification to add wingtip tanks than to change the fuselage. to add more internal fuel.I guess they were a more permanent version of drop tanks.
>>65024548>Voodoonicelooks like a trainer prototype of a Phantomanyway, for me it's the Westland Whirlwindobjectively a failure since it was an attempt to use up engines which nobody was using, and they discovered there were good reasons why nobody was using them enginesbut everything else was cutting edge. it pioneered the BRRRRRTT model of CAS, the quad Hispano 20mm setup, and the bulleted t-tail (small t) which all went on to grace more vaunted fighters well into the jet age. if not for the engines it would have been one of the British twin-engine mainstays of the war.
>>65025171Looks like a 262 with props
>>65024548I like and care about the Voodoo. Insanely cool looking aircraft!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUWsC85k8Po
>>65024596>Failed bongjank bomber converted to air-sea rescue by installation of a custom-designed and thoughtfully equipped parachuting sailboatInspired choice, anon. It's a shame such compassionate efforts often go unheard of by the general public.
>>65025115You shut your whore mouth about panther-chan. I care about her. I've always cared.
>>65025115Probably had more to do with aerodynamics and I know a lot of early jets were low riders when they were on the ground.
>>65024605I just want to see it already because I know it will be sex.
>>65025171Yes the Whirlwind's problem was its whole design was close-fit tailored around the Peregrine.If the Peregrine could have been made mechanically successful/reliable and even increased its power output by 10 or 20 percent, the Whirlwind might ? have become a formidable Allied fighter-bomber.
>>65025171You shut your filthy whore mouth! She's beautiful, and the engines weren't her fault. She was just doing her best in a bad situation, and I don't care what you have to say about her!
>>65025184>>65026092
>>65025115The Panther was badass, though.https://nypost.com/2023/01/21/former-us-pilot-royce-williams-receives-navy-cross/
>>65024548Vought F6U PirateHilariously bad airplane.https://youtu.be/ZSWDysvJiA4?si=LeKunprbXa2zBTWOG picture btw. I happened to know about the plane from the video above, and didn't know that the museum I was visiting even had it.
>>65026170Wow, perfect. I feel no level of admiration or revulsion looking at it.
>>65025115Isn't having large weights on your wingtips REALLY bad for roll rate and g-limits? Why did it take so long for the idea of conformal fuel tanks?
>>65025117>drift in a lazy 1g left turn>defeat missile
>>65025214>>65024548The voodoo is the plane that people will get excited about from a distance because they think it's an f4 phantom. Only to cause disappointment because when they get closer and find out it's a voodoo
I feel like the Canuck could've been a good basis for a CAS aircraft
For some reason image search for this plane returns a lot of porn.
>>65024548>he doesn't know
I just think its neat, it looks like something out of Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise
>>65026202It's really bad for roll rates, but it's good for g-limits since adding weight to the tips of the wings reduces the bending stresses in the wing spar, and the tip mounted fuel tanks reduce induced drag like winglets.The main reason they stopped making designs with wingtip tanks is transonic drag, the further away a given volume is from the main fuselage the more drag it causes.
>>65026286The CF-101 can't be cool if it's a cheaper replacement for something cooler
>>65026275
>>65024548Meteor my beloved>Inb4 worse than ME262 and MIG-15 lmaoIt did its best, ok?!
>>65026110Lmao get up to date. He received the medal of honor a few weeks ago
>>65026110https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4414792/hegseth-inducts-naval-aviator-medal-of-honor-recipient-into-pentagon-hall-of-he/
>>65025115>>65025133>>65025147Early jet fighters and bombers had high fuel consumption rates, adding tanks to/near the wingtips was an aerodynamically efficient, quick and simple option.
>>65026502Did pretty good in that one sneak attack
Bring back the Super Tweet as a COIN/CUAS platform.
>>65026208Warthunder's implementaion is rather questionable.https://youtu.be/BFt7A-sibr0?si=0wmQnwxBALOIe48F
>>65026592Criminally underrated.The SAAB SK60 was a similar plane, and somehow even more underrated.
My favorite plane and a near unique example of the gunship interceptor concept. The fact this incredibly shit deathtrap entered service defies logic
>>65025128Anybody who's played IL-2 likes that plane though
>>65026625A lot of SAAB aircraft are cool looking
>>65026641>entered servicedidn't do a whole lot of operating(they were just a half dozen Y-development aircraft assembled into a 'squadron' that was mainly grounded for maintenance)
>>65026592
>>65025221>a plane dropping a boat from the sky into the waterIt's like a bizzaro world reverse aircraft carrier. My mind is blown.
>>65026711
>>65024548every Chinese, Russian, and yuropoor aircraft in the last 50 years
>>65026953
>>65026219I wonder if the NRC has the plans on microfilm just like they did all those years for the Arrow. Get Bombardier or DeHavilland Canada to build a new airframe and go from there. Hell, I'd take a digital twin that is compatible with DCS.
>>65026431Underrated post. Also reduces flutter and associated fatigue, kind of like always putting wingtip Sidewinders on an F16 even if there's no chance they'll be used or other stores need to be sacrificed for it.
>>65025221Speaking of aircraft and sailboats, there was a German seaplane from the 1920s that had a sail rig in case of engine trouble. It makes a fair amount of sense for the era before aircraft had radios.
>>65025119>Gee Bill, how come your mom lets you have TWO Air Forces?
>>65026431Yeah, wing pre-loading is really counterintuitive feeling. Lots of planes gain also useful load when you stick tip tanks on them.
>>65027028It makes sense when I really think about it, but it still seems so backwards.
>>65025171It had a window of usefulness that lasted about a couple months at best sadly. That still better than the welkin, that was designed to intercept high altitude bombers. A threat that was not only countered by a modified spitfire, but had ceased to exist before the welkin even saw service.My favourite story about the whirlwind is that apparently after getting it's first kill (iirc a German sea plane), Westland send the squadron a hamper basket.
>>65025115Mass damper on the end of the wing deletes a bunch of flutter conditions. Many mid 20th century fast aircraft had serious design issues or crashes caused by flutter found during flight tests. Risk mitigation, a.k.a. fear of unknowns.
>>65027084>hamper baskettautologybut yeah, amusing>It had a window of usefulness that lasted about a couple months at bestI think if it had been more successful, it would have developed into the Mosquito
If they had been discovered earlier, would wingtip tanks have had significant potential for use in non-jet aircraft during World War II?
>>65025758Damn that pilot has six swastikas, he must be some kind of super Nazi
>>65027199see >>65026544It was aerodynamically advantageous for the faster jet fighters, the WWII piston aircraft were slow enough that it didn't make much difference, and would have been more expensive/time consuming, to design a wing-conformal tank for those planes. Even the faster fighter aircraft, typically cruised at 300 mph or lessAlso remember that external fuel tanks only came along in wide use after 1941 (just 3 years of the war)
>>65026092
>>65025115>>65026170
>>65025171>>65026217I resent descriptions of the Voodoo as a discount Phantom when the F-3 Demon is RIGHT THERE.
>>65025763SKYRAYI love this dopey little bastard.
>>65027341Cutlass spotted.Vought had some iconic fighters, but it made some absolute lemons too.
>>65027311>girls in the 70s>8 tonnes empty>girls in the new 20s>15 tonnes emptyHornets are getting too fat
>>65027432
>>65027424skyray a cute
The Tiger may have the most insane K/D ratio of any aircraft (it shot itself down)
>>65027539HEEMEVERYONEEVENMYSELF
>>65027539The pilot let out a fat burst, then nosed the aircraft into a further dive, and also applied more thrust for good measure. That could have happened with any jet. It was a physics problem, not a design flaw.
>>65027515actually kind of cool, but the engines sucked and airplane had other issues
>>65027439superbugs aren't Hornets different beast and design, vast distance from the original concept
>>65026625Good shoutThere's just something about aircraft with twin turbojets tucked up under the wings that appeals to me
>>65024548We are getting damn close to a century of service from a biplane that shot down a jet. Please don't let me down on this DPRK...
>>65028192>The prototype of the U-2, powered by a 74 kW (99 hp) Shvetsov M-11 air-cooled five-cylinder radial engine, first flew on 7 January 1928 piloted by M.M. GromovWe have less than two years to go.
Sea vixen
>>65028268
>>65028192>shot downI could've sworn it was a mobility related kill where the jet pilot lawn darted trying to slow down enough to shoot it not realizing it's top speed was significantly below his stall speed.
Cool, but utterly awful in combat
>>65027526Exceptionally so. I would very much like a chibi Skyray to pet.
>>65024548Fuck you. I like the voodoos.
>>65028651Looks like an IL-2
>>65027432It looks so mid-century space-age I can't help but love it.
>>65028651Definitely the most Crimson Skies plane IRL
>>65024548>Now, remember when I said 'OP is a fag' earlier? Well, remember that, as it's about to become relevant very soon.
>>65029602Cursed filename.
>>65028619Yea, “shot down” is definitely a misnomer. Still, a kill is a kill.
>>65028651>IL-2 at home
>>65026092>when the CG is 95% engines
>>65029923
>>65028651
>>65030056Is that an album cover?
>>65030059does have that kinda look, but its a paintinghttps://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/20392
>>65030309What a beautiful profile of an aircraft
>we don't want to be Boeing's bitch building B-29s, we can totally whip up a hot new fighter with some of these spare parts from random other planes lying around!
>>65030040*nom*
>>65027439>>65027910Both are bloated F-5's.
>>65026592I love the Super Tweet and any other forays that Cessna attempts to make into the land of the MIC.
>>65026959will these actually be produced in larger numbers or did the war kill any potential of fanprops getting a bit more popular for some years again
>>65030056NiceI recon it could have worked on a 2 engine, like a mosquito
>>65032876Famously, it did not, picrelthe whole thesis behind turret fighters was a holdover from WW1, that it was difficult to drive and shoot at the same time, so split the roles between two people. this failed because a single-engine fighter was always more manoeuvrable than a twin, ceteris paribus; and also because humans developed the skills to drive and shoot a plane; and the weight saved from not having a gunner more than made up in speed and manoeuvrability.in short, one man could indeed do the job of two.>so why did the Mosquito succeed when others failed?it didn't; the Tempest V was the RAF's last and best prop superiority fighter, just as the P-51 was for the USAAF and not the P-38.
>>65032953The Mosquito wasn't an air superiority fighter. It was a night fighter and ground attack aircraft (also used for dropping flares to mark bombing targets). Outside of warthunder at least the Mosquito is best known for low level bombing raids.
>>65032756I think ? the An-70 was abandoned back in 2000s>>65032441yes the YF-17 was a development of Northrop's company venture twin engine P-530 Cobra. But the YF-17 wasn't so much larger or heavier than the original P-530, that line drawing graphic is not very accurate as to the comparative planform sizes. Main difference of the LWF YF-17 prototype was a slightly longer forward fuselage and side strakes.
>>65026102
>>65033384Sizes aren't accurate at all in that drawing. Whole process started with trying to cram more bombs under F-5, so first thing in between F-5 and F/A-18E was F-5 with high mounted wing. Then it went thru several iterations of "we need more lift - we need bigger engines - we need more fuel - we need more bombs"-loop. Assuming F-5E would somehow fit under F/A-18E, it could carry F-5E with reasonable air to air loadout as payload.
>>65032876they tried (not with a mossie but you get the point)
>>65033501>F/A-18Ethat's the Super Hornet which is a different airplane entirely.The only valid timeline of comparison (and even the F/A-18A-B-C-D is a different step beyond, after Northrop handed off the Navy fighter project to McDonnell Douglas) is the F-5 through F/A-18My post you replied to was about the relative difference betweent Northrop's initial twin-engine P-530 proposals, and the resulting Lightweight Fighter competition entry YF-17<--between which there was little size or weight difference.Once the YF-17 was shunted into a Navy fighter (_and_ Attack aircraft) program, it became a different airplaneNorthrop (during the 1975-77 period) had a "YF-18" navy fighter proposal but this, like the few-years-later resulting F/A-18A had different landing gear, wings, fuselage configuration and weight increases over the original Air Force YF-17 prototype. The Air Force's 1973 YF-17 was supposed to be a Light Weight Fighter (and look today decades later at the Block 50+ F-16s), bloat is inevitable
