I couldn’t find the old cold war jets thread, but I came across this and thought some others might like a lock down read….

https://media.defense.gov/2020/Nov/23/2002540204/-1/-1/1/B-70%20VARIANTS.PDF

I like this picture because it reminds me that the coolest jets were designed 60 years ago. In 1940, wood and canvas biplanes were still common, 20 years later, they were designing Mach 3 aircraft. 60 years later, it’s all about stealth, not speed and we ugly pigs like the F35.

This picture of the YF 23 (much cooler looking plane than the F22) brings that home – super futuristic but covered in mould and cobwebs!

I also have a soft spot for the YF 32…

YF 32

Does anybody else see Olaf?
Now that is one pug-ugly jet, although apparently it was the better of the two options.
Aesthetics, innit!

Olaf wasn’t chosen because it would have been laughed at.

Now that is one pug-ugly jet

Is it case that the early stuff had to be able to be flown by the pilot? So they are sleek and balanced.

The new aircraft are build to carry what they need and then use control computers to make them “flyable”? Without which they would be uncontrollable?

Now that is one pug-ugly jet

Here’s the champ, still flying.

“If it looks right it flies right”

As amazing as some of the technical innovations in aviation have been there are always traditionalist who decry different designs because the go against the rules (a bit like road cycling)

The A-10 was hated by Air Force generals because it was ugly and slow, the pilots that flew it and the troops it supported on the other hand absolutely loved it.

The new aircraft are build to carry what they need and then use control computers to make them “flyable”? Without which they would be uncontrollable?

Not sure that has anything of anything to do with the appearance.

Is it case that the early stuff had to be able to be flown by the pilot? So they are sleek and balanced.

No. Some of the really sleek looking early jet were deathtraps. F100 and F104 for example. The F4 Phantom was never a beautiful looking aircraft, but seems to have a good reputation for not killing pilots.

XB-70 is a fascinating aircraft and, if you’re on Instagram, its worth following romig21 who posts a lot focussing on the XB-70 (and Blackbirds) with a good bit of detail (interesting posts regarding the fatal crash with the F104)…

https://www.instagram.com/p/CItnoG3hJ1O/?igshid=1x0f3kwuqvy76

Modern fighters are designed to be unstable & the computers keep them flying where the pilot wants them to, more unstable basically means more manouverable.

From memory I think the XB70 crashed because the pilots couldn’t raise their arms to reach/move the controls once it started to spin, due to the cockpit being so far ahead of the mass centre it created so much centripetal acceleration. A sexy machine though.

The stealth requirements of modern aircraft means all or most of the stores have to be carried internally so that makes them appear more bloated and fatter than previous aircraft where stealth was a much lesser concern. Also with advancements in stand off weapons and integration into a wider network manoeuvrability is not as important as it once was as the chances of a dogfight are very slim…which leads people to assume the F35 is crap because its not as manoeuvrable as an F15 or F16, though in reality that was never the intention and its far more lethal. Ultimately it depends on how you define ‘Better’.

The 50’s and 60’s was a fascinating era in aviation but was as much if not more about development and R&D and political willy waving in the fight to be the biggest superpower, rather than producing decent and effective aircraft. I suspect if the XB70 had entered into service it would have been a pretty useless thing in the event of a real war.

The A-10 was hated by Air Force generals because it was ugly and slow, the pilots that flew it and the troops it supported on the other hand absolutely loved it.

There is a YouTube vid of Senator McCain ridiculing a general in a hearing suggesting A10’s should be phased out with B1’s providing close ground support.

Also with advancements in stand off weapons and integration into a wider network manoeuvrability is not as important as it once was as the chances of a dogfight are very slim…which leads people to assume the F35 is crap because its not as manoeuvrable as an F15 or F16, though in reality that was never the intention and its far more lethal.

Sure, but it’s pig ugly. If I was Minister of Defense, jets would still have to look cool.

There is a YouTube vid of Senator McCain ridiculing a general in a hearing suggesting A10’s should be phased out with B1’s providing close ground support.

here you go, i quite enjoyed that – syaing it how it is..

Russia’s effort at a Dan Dare / Thunderbirds mega-bomber

Myasishchev M-50 ‘Bounder’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-50

Now where’s a TSR-2 when you want one….

deathtraps. F100 and F104 for example

Just leaving this here…

Now where’s a TSR-2 when you want one….

Eventually re-invented as a Tornado.

From memory I think the XB70 crashed because the pilots couldn’t raise their arms to reach/move the controls once it started to spin

The aircraft crashed due to the lack of vertical stabilisers, both ripped off by the 104. The issue with their arms meant that neither aircrew could operate their ejector seats. The aircraft was doomed as soon as the F104 made contact, and so ended the chapter of a beautiful aircraft, and one way ahead of it’s time. Some of the photos on that IG account show beautifully the scale of it against the SR71.
It’s also a sobering thought that this was just a photo-shoot for a promo brochure.

I had (well still have somewhere) an “Observer’s Book of Aircraft” from the year dot. By far the coolest looking aircraft in it is the Myasishchev Bounder.

IIRC approx 330 English Electric Lightnings were built, 89 RAF Lightnings were lost due to accidents. Note that this includes the T5 that crashed in South Africa in 2009, but does not include Kuwaiti or Saudi Lightnings.

Of the 571 Eurofighter Typhoons built, 10 have been lost. Of these, two were lost in a mid-air collision, one due to pilot error and another on a combat mission due to “technical issues”, one overran the runway on landing.

Quite aside from the quantum leap in the pilot’s situational awareness, range, armament capability, AI the progress made in safety is staggering.

Ok, this is controversial, but I always thought the TSR2 was ugly as well. I accept that it could have done great things for the British aero industry, and was killed by Govt incompetence (sound familiar?), but it was beaten with an ugly stick and nothing to look at.
The A10 is a formidable machine, mainly due to the firepower but also the fact that it is slow, giving it increased value for CAS. In the wrong hands though it goes very wrong very quickly

Myasishchev M-50 ‘Bounder’

I like a Backfire-B too. A bargain-basement B-1.

Always thought the XB70 had been designed by Gerry Anderson!

The issue with their arms meant that neither aircrew could operate their ejector seats

Not quite. The pilot made it out, the co-pilot didnt

The early Cold War jet that would have ruled the world had politics and some per dubious tactics by Lockheed not got in the way

The Saunders Roe Sr.53 and SR.177

https://images.app.goo.gl/rjsT45SdRBbonS968

This seems like a good opportunity to post this, an interview with an SR-71 pilot which I read very recently.
https://hushkit.net/2020/12/24/declassified-spying-at-mach-3-our-interview-with-sr-71-blackbird-pilot-reveals-how-us-lured-north-korea-to-shoot-missiles/
It’s a fascinating read, and gives a lot of extra background info that I’m not sure has been published elsewhere.

The A-10 was hated by Air Force generals because it was ugly and slow, the pilots that flew it and the troops it supported on the other hand absolutely loved it.

I know a couple of A-10 pilots, it was apparently an absolute hoot to fly.

This was a good read on the Avro Arrow, which seems to mirror the fate which befell the TSR2

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200615-the-record-breaking-jet-which-still-haunts-a-country

This seems like a good opportunity to post this, an interview with an SR-71 pilot which I read very recently.

I remember seeing a brief interview with a SR71 pilot in a Concorde documentary. He was cruising along, comfortably above the speed of sound, at whatever mental height they flew at, when ATC asked him to change height as a Concorde was coming through. He smiled to himself that he and his co-pilot were essentially sitting in spacesuits, peeing into a tube, and the people in the plane flying as high, and faster, than them were sipping gins and tonic…

It could have done great things for the British aero industry,

it did do wonders, none of the research or advances in technology were wasted. As is pointed out up thread, the Tornado is essentially “next generation TSR2”

@CountZero that Blackbird interview was excellent.
I like Sled Driver but Brian Shul can be a bit much at times.

it did do wonders, none of the research or advances in technology were wasted. As is pointed out up thread, the Tornado is essentially “next generation TSR2”

In the ’50’s and ’60’s we invested a huge and unaffordable amount of our national GDP in R&D in aircraft and nuclear power and weapons, not for any long term ambition to retain our own domestic capability in any of those areas, but to make sure we were taken seriously by the US and secured a seat at the top table on the global stage, and in that aim the strategy was successful. The US were all set to ditch us until we developed our own nuclear bomb capability and when we lead the world in Aviation technology. We knew our empire was dwindling, we didn’t have the economic or political will to do what it would have taken to become a stand alone super power again, but didn’t want to be relegated down to the status of the minor countries scrabbling around for the scraps and largely ignored and uninfluencial on the geopolitical stage.

All our technology was fettered away to the US in exchange for US off the shelf products and us being a key player and influencer on the world stage.

didn’t want to be relegated down to the status of the minor countries scrabbling around for the scraps and largely ignored and uninfluencial on the geopolitical stage.

Probably a topic for a different thread, but why do we care so much about this? I think our notion that we are a big fish causes more problems than it fixes (look at the Iraq mess and Brexit, for a start, both have our idea of our inflated global importance at their heart)

People in power always want more power.

Quick have another pic (infographic) of some fancy American bombers carriers.

All our technology was fettered away to the US in exchange for US off the shelf products

if you have that view, it’ll blow your mind that without Direct US funding right from the get go, the Harrier would’ve died on the drawing board

I had no idea the Valkyrie was that big. It’s bloody enormous and dwarfs the B1, which in itself is no Playmobil! Even the F15 is large as modern jets go, an F16 would be another good comparison as they’re much more ‘sports car’.
Am I right in thinking that the dropped wingtips were adjustable? Certainly looks like it in the photos of it in flight. I’d imagine the vortices given off by those wings were impossibly unique unpredictable, and certainly spelt doom for that F104 that strayed too close.

Quick have another pic (infographic) of some fancy American bombers carriers.

What’s the betting the B52 will still (STILL!) be in service when the others are gone?

I had no idea the Valkyrie was that big. It’s bloody enormous and dwarfs the B1, which in itself is no Playmobil!

only 5 metres shorter than Concorde. No wonder they were considering launching space planes from it

Am I right in thinking that the dropped wingtips were adjustable? Certainly looks like it in the photos of it in flight.

Yep they could hinge downwards

That infographic above is a bit misleading, the B-2 may not be particularly long it is still pretty large, but its size is more about wingspan (almost as large as the B-52’s) and its surface area than its length.