Fri May 12, 2006 5:00 pm
RickH wrote:O.P. he may own the A-6s but I'll bet he got them out of the DRMO and key pieces have been demilled therefore forever rendering them incapable of flight. I know that Lal Aero has significant A-6 components and one early F-4 with a cracked spar. but big pieces do not an airframe make !
I got the impression that he brought them from overseas somewhere. I'm probably confusing them with A-4's. As a matter of fact, Has the A-6 been in foriegn service?
On another note, seeing that another Collings deal is probably unlikely anytime in the near future, what do you think the chances of gathering up all of the A-6 (or whatever your flavor is) stuff, and heading over to South Africa and flying it at Jet Town is?
It's a nice thought anyway.
Fri May 12, 2006 6:12 pm
It would be tough to get an export license for the A-6 stuff, I'm sure.
The Navy still has control of all of the A-6s at AMARC and they won't release them except as statics through the museum program.
The A-6 has never served with anyone but the U.S.Navy. At one point the French were looking at some A-6s but nothing ever came of it.
The Navy still has control of all of the A-6s at AMARC and they won't release them except as statics through the museum program.
The A-6 has never served with anyone but the U.S.Navy. At one point the French were looking at some A-6s but nothing ever came of it.
Fri May 12, 2006 7:24 pm
Rick,
Why didn't you include the F-106 along with the other "Century Series" fighters you chose. The F-106 certainly did dozens of continenal interceptions of marauding, snooping Soviet military aircraft during its years in service. The Delta Dart most definitely is a warbird in my opinion.
Why didn't you include the F-106 along with the other "Century Series" fighters you chose. The F-106 certainly did dozens of continenal interceptions of marauding, snooping Soviet military aircraft during its years in service. The Delta Dart most definitely is a warbird in my opinion.
Fri May 12, 2006 8:04 pm
Okay,
I figured I'd give you my two cents here.
F-86
F-100
F-105....
The English Electric Lightning
I am afraid that from an asthetics point of view and a "how was it built" point of view, I am afraid that I can't even bring myself to consider any of the former Soviet built fighters. They all seem hand built and crude...yes. But I gotta hand it to them those planes can sure do the job well.
Just my two cents,
Paul
I figured I'd give you my two cents here.
F-86
F-100
F-105....
The English Electric Lightning
I am afraid that from an asthetics point of view and a "how was it built" point of view, I am afraid that I can't even bring myself to consider any of the former Soviet built fighters. They all seem hand built and crude...yes. But I gotta hand it to them those planes can sure do the job well.
Just my two cents,
Paul
Su-25
Fri May 12, 2006 8:44 pm
I'll have to go with the Su-25 Frogfoot as best warbird jet. Having previously flown A-10s and having a decided bias in favor of it, I still have to give the nod to the little SU.
Performance-wise, the Su-25 is pretty amazing. While not supersonic, it certainly runs in the transonic range -- IIRC, something on the order of Mach 0.8. Operations on unimproved fields are equally amazing.
Handling is often compared to the A-10 but a more realistic comparison is probably to the BAe Hawk or AlphaJet.
Performance-wise, the Su-25 is pretty amazing. While not supersonic, it certainly runs in the transonic range -- IIRC, something on the order of Mach 0.8. Operations on unimproved fields are equally amazing.
Handling is often compared to the A-10 but a more realistic comparison is probably to the BAe Hawk or AlphaJet.
Fri May 12, 2006 10:45 pm
O.P.'s criteria was " Warbird Jet", I took that to mean a warbird was a civilian operated/owned former military jet.
Using those guidlines for a benchmark I didn't consider the A-10, SU-25, Mig 29 or 23. Yes I'm aware that there are a couple Mig 23s & a 29 that are civilian owned but they have never gotten close to actually flying in civilian hands.
Rob, I didn't count the A-3s because they are on a bail program and are still owned by the Navy and used strictly for R&D. I felt the same about the F105.
I forgot that there is an F106 supposedly being restored for civilian flight but it hasn't happened yet and we've only seen one picture of it.
Using those guidlines for a benchmark I didn't consider the A-10, SU-25, Mig 29 or 23. Yes I'm aware that there are a couple Mig 23s & a 29 that are civilian owned but they have never gotten close to actually flying in civilian hands.
Rob, I didn't count the A-3s because they are on a bail program and are still owned by the Navy and used strictly for R&D. I felt the same about the F105.
I forgot that there is an F106 supposedly being restored for civilian flight but it hasn't happened yet and we've only seen one picture of it.
Fri May 12, 2006 11:13 pm
Rob, who operates the A-3 at Hanscomb ?
What has an ejection seat got to do with this discussion ?
What has an ejection seat got to do with this discussion ?
Fri May 12, 2006 11:47 pm
No, I said the aircraft were on a bail program. Has nothing to do with ejection seats.
When the military loans a combat or govt aircraft to a company to operate for a specific program those aircraft are "bailed" to the company for the life of the project or specific contract. The private companies are operating the aircraft as public aircraft because they are flying on a Govt contract.
The A-3s were that way, Raytheon could use them to develop new products for DoD but when they decided they were done then they have to give them back or do with them whatever the owning agency tells them to do.
The early Flight System F-86s, F-100s and A-4s were all like that.
The BAE F-4Ds at Mojave were the same. It's been happening for years.
These corporate operated military aircraft are all flying with an R&D Experimental certificate. They aren't supposed to fly anywhere but where their operating program says they can. That usually doesn't include airshows. The civilian military jets are flying with Experimental Exhibition certificates.
Hot ejection seats ARE allowed providing the CAD/PADS are all up to date and the seats are maintained by the book. What is not allowed are any kind of jettisonable stores.
When the military loans a combat or govt aircraft to a company to operate for a specific program those aircraft are "bailed" to the company for the life of the project or specific contract. The private companies are operating the aircraft as public aircraft because they are flying on a Govt contract.
The A-3s were that way, Raytheon could use them to develop new products for DoD but when they decided they were done then they have to give them back or do with them whatever the owning agency tells them to do.
The early Flight System F-86s, F-100s and A-4s were all like that.
The BAE F-4Ds at Mojave were the same. It's been happening for years.
These corporate operated military aircraft are all flying with an R&D Experimental certificate. They aren't supposed to fly anywhere but where their operating program says they can. That usually doesn't include airshows. The civilian military jets are flying with Experimental Exhibition certificates.
Hot ejection seats ARE allowed providing the CAD/PADS are all up to date and the seats are maintained by the book. What is not allowed are any kind of jettisonable stores.
Sat May 13, 2006 2:57 am
F2H-2 Banshee.
Because nobody else mentioned it is why, doggone it.
Because nobody else mentioned it is why, doggone it.
Sun May 14, 2006 3:17 pm
1. A-10
2. F-18
No mas...............
Lynn
2. F-18
No mas...............
Lynn
Sun May 14, 2006 3:28 pm
most versatile award........ the f-80 / t-33, best looking......... f-104, most bad assed brawler...... the f-4 phantom, biggest bang for the tax payers buck....... the b-52
Sun May 14, 2006 5:54 pm
What about a TSR2.... now that has to be one of the coolest out there. However, the trump card would of course be the SR-71. It still looks like it comes from the next century... not the last.
Cheers.... Richard
PS. The A-6's nickname amongst some people I've known in the F-14 community was "Sky Pig".... sort of sums it up really
Cheers.... Richard
PS. The A-6's nickname amongst some people I've known in the F-14 community was "Sky Pig".... sort of sums it up really
Mon May 15, 2006 6:56 am
Gee, guys, if your going to go as far out of O.P.s "warbird box" as the B-52, SR-71, and TSR-2 and we might as well include the Avro Arrow! Though I don't think they follow the spirit of the original question as NONE of those will ever be civilian owned. O.P. I thought you running this?....Take control, man, before there's more carnage. 
Last edited by RickH on Mon May 15, 2006 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mon May 15, 2006 1:07 pm
I'm not undecided either because it's clearly the F-86!
Dennis
Dennis
Mon May 15, 2006 1:21 pm
How about the RF-84 Thunderflash or it's sister the Thunderstreak..any of those
become Warbirds yet?
become Warbirds yet?