How fast have you driven?

**redbaron** · 08-20-2009, 11:02 AM

Don't forget that the F-117 was decommissioned and they were all disassembled and the airframes crushed (aside from a few museum pieces).

That and the fact that they weren't terribly great flying airplanes and had an awful lot of serious crashes didn't really help. Not to mention the fact that the first known flight was in the early 80's but the first classified flight date is well before that (it's assumed). The airframe was old, worn out, a poor design by today's standards and needed to go.

Still, kind of sad that the only real stealthy stuff we have right now is the B2 & F22.

**scared2mosh** · 08-20-2009, 11:07 AM

at least that we know of... there are probably a lot of top secret planes that would blow all of your minds

but seriously this is going way off topic... I don't want to clopse this, but I will if I have to

LaserRacer · 08-20-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What5647

Yes, the planes it replaced did their jobs better-when they flew. That was the one of the Navy's driving goals, get a simple, easy to maintain aircraft that can perform as many jobs as possible. A carrier has to carry everything it needs to service and fly all the aircraft in it's air wing, and having the bulk of your aircraft based off of the same platform is a huge help in that regard. The Navy doesn't have some of the supply luxuries that the Air Force does.

I am by no means saying that the SuperHornet doesn't meet the the navy's needs...I will definately agree that a single airframe is logistically much simpler than many mission specific ones.

I just hate how some people refuse to realize that from a strictly aircraft capability standpoint, the entire F/A-18 Program was a step backwards. (I have always kind of wondered how it ever made it past the YF-17 phaze after loosing to the F-16) (Plus I admit that I am pretty unhappy to see the F-14D/ A-6E combo go.)

I didn't realize the F-117 was being let go. I have wondered when that might happen. I realized that it definately wasn't a pilots airplane, however I thought that the fly-by-wire made them fairly easy to fly.

***Art*** · 08-20-2009, 01:04 PM

Seriously, on topic please.

**redbaron** · 08-20-2009, 02:58 PM

I've decided that to stay on topic, we'll call them the cars of the sky, since there isn't an airplane forum

What5647 · 08-20-2009, 03:32 PM

Perhaps splitting this into another topic here in cars would work? This is more of a vehicles area anyways...we discuss more than just cars. (Bikes, go-carts, now planes, etc.)

**scared2mosh** · 08-20-2009, 03:39 PM

mulletman · 08-20-2009, 05:47 PM

Mod.... split please?

Until then....

Quote:

Originally Posted by What5647

No matter how you look at it though, I'd say the old Mcdonnell/Douglass group easily made some of the best aircraft our nation has ever flown. Developed the F-4 for the Navy, made the F-15, F-18, F-18E/F, AH-64, C-17, and the Tomahawk. An impressive list.

The F-4 belongs nowhere near that list. The F-4 was/is a terrible airplane. Yeah... it looks kind of cool.... and it's a Vietnam era icon. It was also an aerodynamic wreck, which they attempted to 'fix' several different (and yet still ineffective) ways. Take a look at it's kill ratio... and you might realize that it was struggling mightily to get kills against MiG 17's and 21's. Neither of which were great airplanes by any means....

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 08-20-2009, 05:50 PM

since you guys cant get on topic...

**redbaron** · 08-21-2009, 10:30 AM

haha bill pwnt everyone
except diz mint
diz mint keeps it fresh
even when threadz be clopsed

Tim Possible · 08-21-2009, 05:59 PM

Mint Glow?