For aircraft enthusiasts: the meanest looking aircraft

[Tdot]

The A-10 usually looks like a happy turtle to me (with exception to the Flying Tigers unit). Not very mean looking on paper, but to see it in action...



that's mean looking.

A lot of good nominee's for MEAN but I think some are more hi-tech or sci-fi or fast looking than mean.

The Starfighter, Blackbird, Hustler, and Stealth's all look sinister but not so mean. The Stuka looks like it has "no fun" written all over it, that thing has to mean.



But my vote goes to the Phantom. It's big, it's heavy, but it's powerful, it's fast, and it smokes (literally!). Small elements of the design give it the mean look to me. The jagged leading edge of the wings, angled wing tips and tail wings, huge intakes, and just enough rounded panels to make it serious business.

I've seen a lot of fighter jets up close but nothing is like being buzzed by an F-4 and then see (and hear, and feel) it go vertical and out of sight in seconds.

[EunosFD]

Originally Posted by gibsonjunkie

That sucker is so huge you can see it from space....

If you look over to the right a bit there is a second, smaller one...

It's a beast and a half. Here's a chart I found with a bunch of different models. The big one is just frickin' huuuuge:

[Blazer]

Originally Posted by Tdot

The Starfighter, Blackbird, Hustler, and Stealth's all look sinister but not so mean. The Stuka looks like it has "no fun" written all over it, that thing has to be mean.

Just ask survivors of the Blitzkrieg in France and the Low Countries and they'll proably shudder in fear of the memory. Stuka's were also outfitted with "Jericho trumpet" sirens under their wings making them howl when diving.


A sovyet film about the Stuka and it's forerunner the Henschel "Hs-123" biplane dive bomber. I can't understand Russian but apparently it's very imformative and detailed, the beginning of this film also showcases the "Jericho Trumpet" sirens.

However, the Stuka worked at its best when there was complete air superiority, because it was never designed to be a fighting machine, when the Luftwaffe employed Stuka's in the Battle of Brittain, the German pilots quickly found out that their Stuka's were easy pickings for the much faster and more nimble Hawker Hurricanes and Supermarine Spitfires who frequently tore the fearsome Raptors of the Luftwaffe a new one.

[Tdot]

I remember the Stuka stories, the howling just added insult to injury. It's looks always bothered me.

The Stuka wasn't much of an airplane but was effective and mean while it lasted. Very frightening if you were on the ground, but almost laughable if you were an allied pilot in pursuit.

My grandfather was WWII U.S.Army, father was U.S.A.F., and former neighbor was U.S.Navy survivor at Pearl Harbor aboard the USS Phoenix. Between them and their buddies I got an informal inside education on history.

[Buckocaster51]

It took me a while to find this.

Straight out of the halcyon days of SAC...



The Convair XB-72 Intimidator!

It could carry really looooooooooong bombs.

[eggman]

Howdy,

I'd have to say the Messerschmidt, which gave the allied air forces fits through the entire war, but especially '39-'43. The Stuka is a no-brainer; wicked looking aricraft. The Stuka was the A-10 "Warthog" of it's day; it needed fighter protection.

BTW, it's entirely possible that current Gibson CEO Henry Yuskevitch's parents fled Poland at about this time, just a guess.

Eggman

[Unseen]

Jeez, when it comes to an aircraft that looks all business and badass, it's hard to top Russia's SU-27.





This aircraft is capable of a maneuver that up till then had eluded other aircraft designs. It is called "The Punchachev Cobra":



Since then, a number of other aircraft have been shown to be capable of this maneuver (or have been upgraded or [re]designed to be capable of it), but when this maneuver was first introduced in 1989 at the Paris Le Bourget air show, it shocked the world of military aircraft.

This maneuver can almost instantly turn the tables on another aircraft in a pursuit or dogfight, allowing the aircraft capable of this maneuver to force its opponent to pass, which then makes the pursuer the pursued.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by eggman

Howdy,

I'd have to say the Messerschmidt, which gave the allied air forces fits through the entire war, but especially '39-'43.

Eggman

i remember seeing the 109 at the air and space museum in d.c.

it was an awesome sight to behold...while i was standing there and old man came up to me and said, "i was a gunner on a B-17 and that's the first time i saw one up that close"

he told me how hard it was to actually hit one of those when it attacked you

also at the museum was a japanese zero and that also had a aura about it, along with the 109, that the us wwII aircraft there didn't have

i guess it was that whole bad guys thing

but there is no doubt in my mind that the p-51 outclassed both enemy aircraft in close range dogfighting

as for hit and run attacks from above on enemy aircraft, or in dangerous low level attacks of airfields, the p-38 and p-47 excelled

[pango_twango]

Originally Posted by Tdot

I've seen a lot of fighter jets up close but nothing is like being buzzed by an F-4 and then see (and hear, and feel) it go vertical and out of sight in seconds.

Adding to the "mean factor" of the F-4s was the fact that even into the mid 1980s it wasn't uncommon to see one taxi in with Mig stars on the fuselage, from kills over Vietnam

It still pains me to think that they've all become target drones....

[Guitarzan]

To me, the Russian Mi-8 is one of the scariest aircraft, because they crash so well. They have upgraded them to the Mi-17, and despite the fact that it is the most numerous chopper ever made, the 8's record is bad. Helicopters have lots of moving parts and are maintenance intensive, and being maintained and flown so pervasively in the third world has a lot to do with its record.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

[Rufus]

Personally, this does it for me...

(but then again, I am kind of prejudiced, having flown them for 20 years)



To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson in the movie Jackie Brown:

"The AH-1 Cobra... when you absolutely, positively got to kill every mutha#$%er in sight."

My #2 would be von Richtofen's Fokker DR-1 triplane from WWI... THAT'S when men were men! (...and sheep were scared!)

Semper Fi

[superbadj]

Originally Posted by Unseen

This maneuver can almost instantly turn the tables on another aircraft in a pursuit or dogfight, allowing the aircraft capable of this maneuver to force its opponent to pass, which then makes the pursuer the pursued.

Well, not really. The problem is that you can't do that maneuver at speed. And dogfights don't happen at slow airshow speeds, they happen at really high speeds. Try that at fighting speeds and the wings will probably come off of the plane.

It DOES demonstrate how the thrust vectoring functions, and thrust vectoring certainly helps with maneuverability, but that particular move isn't all that useful in a real fighting situation.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by superbadj

Well, not really. The problem is that you can't do that maneuver at speed. And dogfights don't happen at slow airshow speeds, they happen at really high speeds. Try that at fighting speeds and the wings will probably come off of the plane.

It DOES demonstrate how the thrust vectoring functions, and thrust vectoring certainly helps with maneuverability, but that particular move isn't all that useful in a real fighting situation.

i remember seeing top gun when i was a college student and what amazed me, way back then in the 80s, that besides its incredible speed, the f-14 tomcat could simultaneously target over 100 aircraft and shoot down a bogie from 125 miles away

though it's probably classified, i wonder how many targets an f-18 or f-22 can simultaneously track and at what distance they can take out a bogie? with computers and their fast growth, i am sure today's fighters can do everything and wash the dishes, too :)

[photoweborama]

Originally Posted by mistermullens

My favorite. F4U Corsair

I was going to say the same thing..

[fltpkr]

This has always been the most fearsome aircraft ever to fly.
I admit my prejudice, having served in a Phantom squadron 1967-70.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by 63dot

i remember seeing top gun when i was a college student and what amazed me, way back then in the 80s, that besides its incredible speed, the f-14 tomcat could simultaneously target over 100 aircraft and shoot down a bogie from 125 miles away

though it's probably classified, i wonder how many targets an f-18 or f-22 can simultaneously track and at what distance they can take out a bogie? with computers and their fast growth, i am sure today's fighters can do everything and wash the dishes, too :)

Yes the aircraft have tremendous tracking and targeting capability... the problem is that the rules of engagement used will rarely, if ever, allow the pilots to use that capability.

The vast majority of the time, the pilot has to visually identify the aircraft as enemy before being cleared to fire. (Obviously to avoid mistakes... friendly aircraft, airliners, etc.)

Unless we get into a situation similar to the kamikaze attacks on the aircraft carriers of WWII (where the air defences were overwhelmed), I doubt you'll see many aircraft getting shot down at 25+ miles range.

(Even though the F-14 did have tremendous ability to track and engage targets at long range, I would not take anything Hollywood puts on the screen as "gospel".)

[63dot]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Yes the aircraft have tremendous tracking and targeting capability... the problem is that the rules of engagement used will rarely, if ever, allow the pilots to use that capability.

The vast majority of the time, the pilot has to visually identify the aircraft as enemy before being cleared to fire. (Obviously to avoid mistakes... friendly aircraft, airliners, etc.)

Unless we get into a situation similar to the kamikaze attacks on the aircraft carriers of WWII (where the air defences were overwhelmed), I doubt you'll see many aircraft getting shot down at 25+ miles range.

(Even though the F-14 did have tremendous ability to track and engage targets at long range, I would not take anything Hollywood puts on the screen as "gospel".)

i am totally with you on the hollywood thing

i got the f-14 info from the navy brochure but i don't remember specifically if top gun mentioned a lot of stats about tomcats or not

i didn't know that a pilot had to visually identify a bogie?

what about the increasingly evolving non pilot UCAV combat aircraft that can carry bombs and air to air missiles? would an onboard camera count?

i think boeing is possibly correct in their assumption that the joint strike fighter will be the last fighter to need a pilot...but the ethical question will pop up of how an aircraft, with the pilot on the ground perhaps thousands of miles away, can keep from accidentally killing innocent civilians

anyway, cool link at: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav.htm

people will ask do computers have judgment, and is technology at the point it's reliable enough to give the pilot on the ground an accurate assessment of what is going on?

[Ethical]

One of my most enduring memories of my time in the RAF was in the early '70s watching these babies scramble. The video doesn't do the aircraft justice but it sure brought back some powerful memories.



The English Electric Lightning

English Electric Lightning Enthusiasts


Ted

[sixstringbastard]

The Warthog has always been my favorite.

[Cowboyfjt]

My dad's ride:



Cheers,
Cowboy

[surfoverb]

This **** flack gun will intimidate the most intimidating aircraft:

and some old school:

[Eric Karonen]

Originally Posted by O- Fender <