BAM'n'IVM

Aw, man, that's even more embarassing - they're about as similar as an F-16 and an F-105... Thanks for the links.

Nice shots as usual, Jake...love those TX tailcodes.

'Sokay, Tony - I didn't know I had the two confused either. I guess my knowledge of unsuccessful Canadian and British projects from the late '60s is lacking... I still agree on the important facts: Beautiful restoration job. and She looks fast.

I thought the TSR2 was the Arrow...that's where I got all the "interceptor" mindset. Can you point me to some decent pics of the Arrow? The two seem very similar, but then I've only rarely seen pics of the Avro Arrow. Who built the TSR2 - was that a British project? Now we get to the root of my confusion...are they at least similar airframes, or do I simply not need to post when I'm fighting the worst cold of my life?

OK, you guys are probably right about my primary gripe - although the aircraft you nominate (as in the collective "you", not a unanimous thing) as "never would'a been had the Arrow entered service" has pretty decent all-around visibility. Then again, the Tornado does have a bit of fighter design mentality about it.

Rear visibility helps when trying to keep something fast and explosive from flying up one's tailpipe, I'm given to understand. Most pilots love completing their mission, but even more pilots enjoy the prospect of landing in one piece back at their home base afterwards. If you can't "check six" visually, that's one important tool taken away from you. RWR is great and a vital tool, but if radar can do it all, then why even install a clear canopy in the first place? Let the pilot fly instruments-only. After all, he's not there to gawk out the windows. Let's take a poll among the actual c

I can definitely see her in a fast, low level strike role - I suppose if there were pylons installed it would be easier to pick out her role. Testing was never allowed to get that far, was it? I stand corrected...somewhat. The lack of rear visibility would still be a major handicap for her crew, though.

She definitely looks fast, but...I have to disagree with you, Ant. If they had entered service and were maintained to a degree to keep flying today, TSR2's would have a pretty limited role in modern combat. Just look at her - she's pure interceptor. Zero rear visibility, and does anyone know how maneuverable she actually was or wasn't? She's obviously built for blistering straight-line speed, but it doesn't look like the designers gave her much in the way of other options. I can't see her as a multirole fighter like an F-16 or an F-4. I'd hate to try to dogfight in her...but I'd also

OK Pierre...I saw your Greek Phantom, so I'm wondering if this is a real airplane or a 1/32 model you built and put your camera lens inside...

Thanks, Jake. I knew it was the "something"01st...it's nice to see that tailcode still flying, even if it's on the wrong unit.

To be specific, 704th FS, 924th FG Air Force Reserve. Their "TX" tailcode and Texas flag fin flash live on in an ANG unit at the former Carswell AFB in Ft Worth (I refuse to call it the NAS/JRB/MCAS/RSVP/YGBSM - it's Carswell.) but i forget the current unit. The 924th's F-4's had two-tone grey camo in a European-one pattern - it was unique in the entire Air Force. Unfortunately, they didn't get creative with the F-16s when they upgraded, and then they got BRAC'ed in the early '90s.

Doing a Google image search for "NASA F-102" turned up photos of a light grey example with dayglo wingtips in USAF markings.

Even NASA's weren't white - although it's an attractive paint scheme. I found some decent pictures at http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/vaul...F102AN617NA.jpg

My mother got one of them. She said it worked great when she tried it right out of the box. The second time she wanted to use it, the whole thing heated up in her hand and the batteries started leaking...and she couldn't turn it off... She's calling for a refund this week.

Sharpies have their uses...but I'm thinking this ain't one of them. I tried various Sharpie techniques in modeling and 2D art, and nothing really worked well if other media was involved. Sharpies only go well with Sharpies. Now, an all-Sharpie paint scheme might be interesting...on a kit you don't like much...

Perhaps they felt that it was the best way to put the red back in after the red dot was removed from the center of the star in 1941?

Since those pods are pylon-mounted, they may be droppable - it would seem to make sense in an emergency to lose a few million bucks worth of electronics if it means bringing home a $30million jet and two officers if jettisoning external stores gives them the extra speed and maneuverability they need to evade a threat. (Wow. Long sentence.) In that case (which is my own WAG out of my own warped imagination) I'd expect the pylons to have the same orientation for the same stores separation issues.

It's a heavier airframe which equals either a lighter weapons load or less range. Major drawbacks for the Air Force. And it would have the wrong air-refuelling system, so they'd have to spend money to modify the design and add more weight with the Air Force recepticle plus the Navy probe... Anyone else hear a can of worms being opened?

Well, that explains the slab-sided perfectly square island, but what about the beehive structure up top? Was that part of the phased array system? The photo of Long Beach shows the same (woefully mis-proporitioned) slab-sided island, but no beehive to be seen. It's startlingly noticable in the previousely linked pic of Enterprise from www.skyhawk.org, but is missing in the current www.navy.mil picture that started the thread. I'm pretty sure it disappeared at some point in the late '70s.

Along the same lines as B-17Fan's question, what exactly was the "beehive" that used to be on top of the island? It apparently was replaced by modern equipment at some point (from the pictures I've seen it seems ot have disappeared in the '70s) but what the heck was that thing?

Semantics. It's a brand new variant of the UH-1 and they've never flown it before. I'd personally call it either an upgrade or a new model of an existing aircraft, but PA folks work on a different wavelength from the rest of us so who knows how they'll phrase something.

Here's an article about it: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123012659 Looks like the major difference is modern avionics and a glass cockpit.

I think Collin answered the question pretty well: "...my main goal is to mission kill the ship and prevent it from being/becoming a threat. Sinking it is secondary." Sinking a ship is spectacular, but neutralizing it is the most important thing.

Yeah, but you don't call putting a magnet on your car "enough" as far as supporting the troops goes. I'd say your service trumps any car decoration...

Great pics - anyone know what the bump on the rear fuselage on that first C-130 is? It doesn't appear on the Herc from North Carolina in the next pic.