Coolest plane thread

2010-04-17 04:43:57

#326

User007Gamer: ???; +21|6240|Dubai, UAE

burnzz wrote:
My wife took this picture in San Diego, in November. Karmaz for whoever can identify it, closest i can come is the Avenger

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/421 … 80b0f5.jpg

That's a T-6 Texan. Mind you, it's not the T-6 Texan II. It's a completely different plane so don't get confused with that one.

-Sh1fty- wrote:
B17 would fly in a box formation. Each B17G had 13 guns on it.

That's 52 guns ready to kick some serious ass.

You know that's the Lancaster I'm talking about right? But about the B-17: the engineers at Boeing actually thought the B-17 wouldn't need an escort because it had so many guns and so it could defend itself effectively. Combat experience proved otherwise.

Last edited by User007Gamer (2010-04-17 05:01:05)

2010-04-17 16:48:09

#327

Karbin: Member; +42|6553

The Lanc was meant as a NIGHT bomber.
The B-17 was meant as a DAYLIGHT bomber.
The defence ideas for their rolls are VERY different.
You couldn't have a belly gunner on a Lanc, the bomb bay is to long. 33 feet holding 12,000 lbs of bombs.
Compare that to the B-17's load of 8,000 lb.

2010-04-17 16:52:19

#328

Trotskygrad: бля; +354|6257|Vortex Ring State

except the fact that most bomber intercept fighters had autocannons with longer range than the .50

Also, it's sorta hard to seriously damage a plane that's weaving and bobbing when you're going straight and level. You gotta get behind someone and unload on their ass to take it down. That's why the B17 failed.

2010-04-17 17:45:44

#329

pace51: Boom?; +194|5431|Markham, Ontario

No offence, but bombers comonly carried less than their max weapons load in ww2. So the Lanc wasn't always even dropping a full load, meaning the B-17 was more practical, because the greater accuracy, although suicidalness, of daylight bombing means you don't need to drop a huge amount of bombs at your target.

2010-04-17 22:04:10

#330

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6973|US

Review the CEP stats from the Combined Bomber Offensive...terrible accuracy all around.
There is a reason they would sen 1,000 bombers to take out a couple factories.
The technology just wasn't there for precision bombing.

2010-04-18 09:31:08

#331

Karbin: Member; +42|6553

pace51 wrote:
No offence, but bombers comonly carried less than their max weapons load in ww2. So the Lanc wasn't always even dropping a full load, meaning the B-17 was more practical, because the greater accuracy, although suicidalness, of daylight bombing means you don't need to drop a huge amount of bombs at your target.

Again.... different roles.
The Lanc was never meant to be more then a AREA night bomber.
The B-17 was meant to be a PRECISION daylight bomber.
The U.S. had a long range bomber the had a larger load carry then the 17, the B-24 but,......
that had it's own problems from it's design philosophy.
Bombers would fly faster then fighters and that would be part of their defence. (The same as the B-17)

Bombload is determined by distance to target and type of target.
There would be a larger load for, say Calais, then on Hamburg.

Last edited by Karbin (2010-04-18 09:41:56)

2010-06-06 08:49:35

#332

pace51: Boom?; +194|5431|Markham, Ontario

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52201/PD260700%40FILE----Two-Swedish-Ai-5680.jpg

2010-06-06 08:57:23

#333

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5732|Ventura, California

Ok I want a mod to change this to "Coolest aircraft thread" so I can put you all to shame with the best aircraft of all time.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2010-06-06 09:04:20

#334

FloppY_: +1,010|6544|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Lun_Ekranoplan.jpg

https://www.yurock.net/wp-content/gallery/rplane/russian_tank_ship_plane_01.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan
Yes this fucking massive thing actually flew!

EDIT: oh. /thread

Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-06-06 09:09:12)

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-06-06 09:10:11

#335

pace51: Boom?; +194|5431|Markham, Ontario

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Ok I want a mod to change this to "Coolest aircraft thread" so I can put you all to shame with the best aircraft of all time.

Bring it! and no posting paper planes...
I think every aircraft is cool. Oh, like the B-36 FICON

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52201/FICON%20la.JPG

2010-06-06 10:21:49

#336

seymorebutts443: Ready for combat; +211|6853|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA

all pace is going to do is spam images here.

2010-06-06 10:41:31

#337

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6995|Cinncinatti

basically what people do in this thread. .

2010-06-06 10:57:38

#338

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5732|Ventura, California

seymorebutts443 wrote:
all pace is going to do is spam images here.

captain fucking obvious

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2010-06-06 11:21:35

#339

seymorebutts443: Ready for combat; +211|6853|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA

-Sh1fty- wrote:
seymorebutts443 wrote:
all pace is going to do is spam images here.
captain fucking obvious

thanks dickhead. It would be fine if it was more than just pace and one other person. It's obviously just going to be him though. So why don't you get your scrawny ass off my case.

2010-06-06 12:28:14

#340

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5732|Ventura, California

seymorebutts443 wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
seymorebutts443 wrote:
all pace is going to do is spam images here.
captain fucking obvious
thanks dickhead. It would be fine if it was more than just pace and one other person. It's obviously just going to be him though. So why don't you get your scrawny ass off my case.

Looks like the tables are turned on that.

How does it feel to be in my position you fucking douche?

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2010-06-06 12:39:45

#341

seymorebutts443: Ready for combat; +211|6853|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA

-Sh1fty- wrote:
seymorebutts443 wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:

captain fucking obvious
thanks dickhead. It would be fine if it was more than just pace and one other person. It's obviously just going to be him though. So why don't you get your scrawny ass off my case.
Looks like the tables are turned on that.

How does it feel to be in my position you fucking douche?

umadbro?

2010-06-06 12:41:00

#342

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5732|Ventura, California

seymorebutts443 wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
seymorebutts443 wrote:

thanks dickhead. It would be fine if it was more than just pace and one other person. It's obviously just going to be him though. So why don't you get your scrawny ass off my case.
Looks like the tables are turned on that.

How does it feel to be in my position you fucking douche?
umadbro?

no u

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2010-06-06 12:42:18

#343

FloppY_: +1,010|6544|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

ITT whiners whining over whiners while they contribute NOTHING to the OP...

Less bitching more ing at the plane I posted

Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-06-06 12:44:05)

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-06-06 13:12:31

#344

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6849

A-10 is a nice anti-armor aircraft, F-15 is the reigning king of proven air superiority aircraft, but THIS is the aircraft to have orbiting overhead.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/ac-130u-19990803ac130a.jpg

a 25mm gatling throwing 1800 rounds a minute, a 40mm bofors autocannon, and a 105mm howitzer onboard- all tied into a fire control system using full day/night video systems, and the same radar as the F-15E strike eagle.

Oh, and it's not just there for one or two passes then it has to go home to refuel.
No, this beauty can stay overhead all night long, if it needs to.

The A-10 was a stroke of mad genius - make a 30mm gatling autocannon fly.
The AC-130U takes that to another level.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the AC-130U. Airborne Artillery.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-06-06 13:15:34)

2010-06-06 13:14:19

#345

FloppY_: +1,010|6544|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

rdx-fx wrote:
A-10 is a nice anti-armor aircraft, F-15 is the reigning king of proven air superiority aircraft, but THIS is the aircraft to have orbiting overhead.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … ac130a.jpg
a 25mm gatling throwing 1800 rounds a minute, a 40mm bofors autocannon, and a 105mm howitzer onboard- all tied into a fire control system using full day/night video systems, and the same radar as the F-15E strike eagle.

The A-10 was a stroke of mad genius - make a 30mm gatling autocannon fly.
The AC-130U takes that to another level.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the AC-130U. Airborne Artillery.

Definately in the top-3 most awesome winged thing evar...

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-06-06 16:49:04

#346

pace51: Boom?; +194|5431|Markham, Ontario

anyone want an ac-130u spectre RWF?

2010-06-06 16:58:24

#347

pace51: Boom?; +194|5431|Markham, Ontario

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52201/SAAB_gripen_2000.jpg

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52201/su-47s%2520down%2520f-22.jpg

2010-06-06 19:07:05

#348

TravisC555: Member; +118|6477|Cox Convention Center, OK

FloppY_ wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … noplan.jpg
http://www.yurock.net/wp-content/galler … ane_01.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan
Yes this fucking massive thing actually flew!

EDIT: oh. /thread

Looks like a boat with engines from the front

2010-06-06 21:22:45

#349

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6849

pace51 wrote:
anyone want an ac-130u spectre RWF?

With the AC-130U, they went back to the nickname "Spooky"

2010-06-06 21:59:55

#350

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5732|Ventura, California

rdx-fx how accurate is the 105 on the spooky? Can it get direct hits on armor easily?

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

BF2S Forums Coolest plane thread

burnzz wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

pace51 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

pace51 wrote:

Board footer