Fallout Studios Forums

Razgriz 1, on 26 Feb 2007, 00:44, said:

And they would. But that may involve tearing up an entire town just to get at a stock of oil, or risking the wrath of 10,000 or so protesting people, who are more or less 10,000 potential voters (politics is a mixture of serving the people, doing what's good for the country, and staying in office, either that or simple power and influence). Plus it may be easier to just buy the oil from a place that is much richer in the commodity than you. And even then if you tapped those sources, the potential will not cover you in the future, unless you can prove me wrong with cold hard statistics. On the other hand though, it would provide jobs, but as I said before in the whole civil part of the thing.

Also the Mustang is one of the best fighters of the war because it was well-rounded, probably the best. And .50 cals are devastating against aircraft, at least in that time period. It would find trouble in Korea.
Edited by AllStarZ, 06 March 2007 - 23:48.

Mustang was had it all EXCEPT the range. The Supermarine Spitfire had it all over the Mustang simply because the Mustang's couldn't stay in the air long enough.

And ATM the best air-superiority fighter in the world ATM IMO is the F-22 because of its "supercruise" ability (the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound without afterburners) and its incredibly small radar signature. The Typhoon's missiles still hang from the undercarriage, giving it a far bigger radar signature.

Mind you, it also costs a hell of a lot more... and once your long-range missiles have run out (taken care of by the countermeasures) and you have to go into dogfight mode, the Typhoon has it all over you.

EDIT: The Typhoon also has supercruise technology, and both it and the F22 are the only two jets that do.
Edited by spiderspag, 06 March 2007 - 11:05.

Err the Mustang could escort but the Spit couldn't. However the Spitfire cost the UK close to £13,000 to design and set up production. I cant think of a better deal ever.

It was also turned into teh RAF swiss army knife, it was a bomber, mud mover, fighter, even a seaplane and capable of work form aircraft carriers.

To demostrate its usefulness. the RAF put it in the air with an English Electric Lightning II which at that time was the fastest in the sky, it was the first capable of Supercruise (unarmed). And even tho the Lightning could light up the afterburners and be so far out of range in seconds the spit still put rounds on the target.

20 fucking years older and still able to out turn the best of British and that time best anywhere.

Yeah, the biggest asset of the mustang was it's range, had even the hurricane had the range of the mustang, then bomber losses would be ssubstatially beter. Anyways, the spitfire wad manuverable due to the huge wings (for the time) but the mustang was almost as manuverable with it's newer wings (can't remember the name). Anyways, supercruise isn't that amazing, yes, you can travel long distances supersonic, that's all. Stealth is the only true innovation, the ability to put decent stealth on a fighter that's actually a fighter, unliek the F-117.

Eddy01741, on 1 Mar 2007, 02:29, said:

Many fighter airplanes of the time had 20mm cannon in addition to machine guns.

Eddy01741, on 6 Mar 2007, 21:31, said:

Supercruise not amazing? The ability to go supersonic without using up loads of fuel and making yourself a big fat target to heat-seeking missiles? I'd say that's a big advantage.

Yes, but the 20 mm cannon by necessity fires more slowly and it depends on the model and make. The .50 cals were better suited for taking out fighter craft of that era.

50 cals are just as good, look, the Fw-190 had 2 20 mm cannons and 2 .303 mgs. I'd take 6 .50s over that, especially since the 20mm fired slower, and had less ammo. Anyways, supercruise still ain't that amazing, do you know how much fuel the F-22 engine uses without afterburners, it's a heck of a lot, each of the engines provide 35,000 pounds of thrust buddy, that's a lot of fuel to be used. Also, by the time your in range of a heat seeking missile (around 5 miles) they can probably already lock onto you weather you have afterburners on or not.

AllStarZ, on 9 Mar 2007, 04:36, said:

I remember reading about how the F4U Corsair's six .50 machine guns would literally vaporize Japanese aircraft.

Yeah...so how is that underarmed?

AllStarZ, on 6 Mar 2007, 01:47, said:

Have you been out in the southwestern United States? I have. There is jackshit out there save desert, and many of the people who live out there want oil development in those areas. We could also drill in ANWR (also a desert wasteland, albeit frozen the entire year) and also off the Gulf of Mexico.

Razgriz 1, on 9 Mar 2007, 23:14, said:

LCPL Carrow, on 12 Mar 2007, 11:19, said:

Japanese aircraft for most part were severely underarmoured. What made the Japanese Zero so deadly was its maneuverability, which came at the cost of lacking several safety features, such as sufficient armor. In fact, some pilots said they could literally feel the wind leaking into the cockpit.

Razgriz 1, on 12 Mar 2007, 19:40, said:

In any case, there's questions of "if it is economically worth it" and the fact that oil supplies need to be controlled.

Plus in any case, forcing us to pay higher prices for it is better than running out of it suddenly. The government regulates prices so that people don't go nuts buying fuel.

i would like to say that the Sabre was better and worse then the Mig 15. the Sabre had less fire power (6 MGs vs. 2 Cannon) but the Sabre had radar-ranging gunsight.

im not going to enter the Spit vs. Mustang arguement, but IMO the Mustang is better but i would be biased cause im an American.

EDIT- just in case you didn't, i know where there's thousends possibly even millions of gallons of oil in the US. Under NORAD
Edited by Mustang, 11 April 2007 - 15:01.

(1) With a kill ratio of ten-to-one, something about the Sabre had to make it an overall better aircraft than the MiG-15

(2) The MiG-15 had 2 x 23mm cannons and 1 x 37mm cannon
The F-86 had 6 x .50cal (12.7mm) machine guns

I like ammo, ammo is good, and you can fit a helluva lot more ammo for .50cal machine guns in the same space that you can fit a smaller ammount of cannon ammo (200 rounds, according to Wiki)

This site is a good one for comparing the two

well im not really up to date on specs. but i thik another reason is because the MIGs were basically tied to ground controllers

All I can say is this, Migs were more manuverable, Sabres had better high alitutude performance, Migs have slower more powerful guns, Sabres have faster less powerful guns (and more of them), and America had well trained pilots, even some WWII vets, and Korea has nigh the worst pilots the world has ever seen.

One that I think is amazing is the Avro Arrow.However, it never went into production because KGB informants were found to have been working at the plant. Guess what plane that got turned into? the MiG-25. At the time, it would have been a revolutionary fighter, but since it took sometime to reverse engineer it, we now have a plane that is only special because of its speed record. Also, the US government did not invest in it and instead spent money on the Thunder Chief, simply because it appealled to politicians because it could carry micro nukes.

Eddy01741, on 12 Apr 2007, 16:44, said:

Erm, dude...the MiG was superior at high altitudes, and was only faster or more maneuverable than early variants of the Sabre. Later variants of the F-86 had more powerful engines which made up the difference in performance that the MiG held.

MiGs were forbidden from flying over UN controlled territory, to include the Yellow Sea, but Sabres were forbidden from following the MiGs across the Yalu River.

Furthermore, most of the pilots flying North Korean MiGs were not in fact North Korean. At first the Soviet Union only sent the aircraft themselves, but eventually shipped whole regiments of aircraft and crews in-theater: the pilots and ground crews of the MiGs were Soviet, not North Korean. This is the reason that MiGs were not allowed to fly over UN controlled territory, so that the Soviet pilots could not be captured and the USSR's active participation in the war discovered.

1. F-22 Raptor
2. YF-23 Black Widow II
3. SU-47
4. SU-33 Flanker
5. SU-35 Superflanker
6. F-16 Fighting Falcon
7. F-2 Interceptor
8. MiG-29
9. F-14
10. F-35B/X35-C Joint Strike Fighter
Edited by Crazykenny, 16 April 2007 - 21:25.

A-10 WTF?

Can carry short range AA missiles. Easily overlooked, that what makes it so dangerous.
Edited by Crazykenny, 16 April 2007 - 21:20.

but its not a fighter.

True, let me replace it.

F/A-18E is a better aircraft than the F-16

F/A-18E/Fs are good multirole planes, yes. But as fighters, AFAIK they lack the same range as the F-16 models. Especially those with conformal fuel tanks.

I personally am I fan of the Hornet and the Viper but I think range is the biggest drawback of the Hornet and that's where the Viper surpasses it. The Viper is also a multirole aircraft, capable of ground attack and SEAD, just like the Hornet.
The Hornet is also capable of carrier operations unlike the ground-based Viper.

Conclusion, the 2 aircraft are very similar in capabilities and roles, however, the Viper comes out on top due to its ability to stay airborne for much longer than the Hornet.

F-16 is more of medium range interceptor then the F/A-18 is. Its not a bad aircraft at all, but the F-16 just outmanuevers it.