DaveSims wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 9:37pm:


Slingsby were very unfairly "scapegoated" by the USAF over those incidents - and it makes me deepely unhappy when I see so called "interlectual" US aviation magazines talk utter rubbish about the "deadly" Firelfly. Not to mention of course, the families were all steered by their leeching lawyers into sueing Slingsby.

Every other operator has had no major problems. The fact the USAF decided to operate them from an airfield at 6500ft AMSL, and the circumstances of on or two of the accidents has alway made me wonder if it was more the way they were operated - of the three fatal crashes, 2 were pilot error (relateting to poor spin recoveries I believe), and the third and unrecoverable stall (which, had it been carried out safely, should have been high enough to abandon the aircraft, otherwise would most likely have been poor aircraft handling). The engine failure issues could well be down to where the aircraft was operated from reading the issues involved.


Nothing wrong with the aeroplane at all.

F-22 - Expensive / maintainence heavy.

Su-35 - Overhyped plane that many claim could take on the F-22... get real.

Su-27 - N001 was a joke and when people hype it up it's fustrating. Annoying when they call the Cope India exercise to show the superiority to the F-15.

F-35 looks similar to the Yak but the method of VTOL is dissimlar

What....no Tristar?

the STOVL Lift Fan thrust can be de-coupled from the P&W cruise engine, thereby enabling the cruise engine to be appropriately sized for conventional flight; the significant amount of thrust augmentation obtained from the Lift Fan greatly exceeds the additional weight incurred; and the lower exhaust jet temperature and pressures result in a more benign ground environment during hover than that produced by direct lift.

And not stealth either... those engines have the IR footprint of a campfire at -80C

Su-35 is a stopgap generation between the Su-27 and Su-37.

Cope India was a Su-30MKI non TVC... which does NOT have the N001 radar (as that one cant do ground targets)

fighter25 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2008 at 12:58pm:

Why?

Per aircraft it's cheaper than the Eurofighter, Rafael, Super Hornet, and the obvious - F-22. Yeah... and for the most part a whole lot more capable too.

I kinda like "FRED" (Foolishly Rediculous Economic Disaster) 
I think that was one the C-5 Galaxy's nicknames

I don't think this would qualify as one of the five worst ever, but the F-104 had a particularly bad safety record, what other aircraft has a downward firing ejection seat? The alternative (being sliced to bits by the tail in an ejection) wouldn't have been any better had the seat been conventionally upward-firing. It also was not known for possessing a great capacity for weapon load. Last of all, with it's tiny wings it didn't live up to it's name of "Star" fighter too well, with regard to maneuverability. In spite of these comments I always liked the aircraft, it having been the first combat jet I saw flying by with burner engaged, and I did run a finger along the leading edge of the wing while visiting one at an aviation museum, drawing some blood in the process .

I

F-22 - Expensive / maintainence heavy.

Why do people keep saying planes like the F-22 and F-35 are the worst aircraft ever built? which would you rather fly in, a F-104 or a RAF RE8?