The Most Dominating Aircraft Ever?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Asher
Also, having a remote control is no statement on electronics.

Then what is the statement on electronics?
The remote control is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing in space flights. Without it is impossible to make space flight.

Well, the Soviets did reverse engineer lots of American ****. Computers especially.
IBM even sent them manuals for some supercomputers in the 70s.

Ahhh.... and in 1959 too, when we launched first satellite, and in 1961 when we launched a first spaceman? Really funny thinking you all have, if Russians doing something better than you are, then it means that they steal it from Americans. Really funny thinking, what for you pay money to CIA, FBI etc. then? It means that your counter-intelligence is bullsh!t, because it is so easy for Russians to steal all your glorious inventions. And btw, if you are so superior, then why your spies are constantly trying to steal schemes of our inventions? The last attempts of CIA (I mean Mr. Pope case) to steal the schemes of our torpedoes “Shkval” are the perfect example of this. Those torpedoes was invented and put in mass production in 80s, but USA have NOTHING equal in its arsenal.

I'm sure the shuttle could have easily done it when it first launched. It just doesn't make sense to do so, the whole point was to put humans into space...

No, shuttle couldn’t. Do you have any idea about landing after space flight? Americans were and still unable to create a fully automatic landing mode for their shuttles.

[Asher]

Serb: I'm from the Empire of Canadia. Warrior of the North, etc.

All I'm saying is in some areas the Soviets lifted tech from the US, especially towards the end of the cold war in the computer field. That much is well documented, there are exact replicas of IBM supercomputers still in tact in Moscow.

I know the Soviets also did tons of innovations too. The Americans probably lifted lots of that tech too.

And as for remote controls: Computers control just about everything on the shuttle right now. It'd be extremely trivial to add in a remote control rather than human control. But there's no point for the US shuttle missions to do so. Landings are actually controlled by computers today. I've seen TV shows on it. Hell, even commercial 747s are landed by computers (ILS) these days.

[Case]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Well I never heard someone say that before. The Zero is widely regarded as a very elegant and deadly piece of fighter design.

It should be compared with other designs from the 1930's to appreciate it. It swept the skies in 1941.

..and then got shot out of them from late 42 onwards

While garbage was probably too harsh a description, the Zero is overated IMO. The contemory American Wildcat and P-40 could generally handle Zeros (the Wildcat through its tough construction, and the P-40 due to its higher speed in a dive). In addition, the Zero's poor armament ment that it really struggled against American heavy bombers.

[Case]

BTW Serb, be careful when praising 'advanced' Russian weapons. Lots of fancy weapons and techs introduced by the Soviets turned out to be little more then pipe dreams, especially when you take into account the limited Soviet/Russian capacity to build and maintain precision weapons.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Asher
I know the Soviets also did tons of innovations too. The Americans probably lifted lots of that tech too.

This is much close to truth.
I just find funny that many people (Americans mostly) think that all Russians scientific achievements were steal from Americans. Americans steal from us no less then we are steal from them, this is the war of intelligences and it still continues.

And as for remote controls: Computers control just about everything on the shuttle right now. It'd be extremely trivial to add in a remote control rather than human control. But there's no point for the US shuttle missions to do so.

Again, Shuttle unable to fly without pilot, Buran can. The most important thing is LANDING, could you imagine how difficult for pilot to land a space ship after space flight? The landing is the most dangerous part of the space flight, and Americans still unable to make and automatic mode for landing the thing why Buran is unique spaceship.

[Case]

I know from past experiance that debating this stuff with Eastern Europeans causes giant s**t fights, but here goes:

Originally posted by Serb Try 1999 Yugoslavia. The few OLD versions of Mig 29 shoot down your planes.

Not true. All the NATO losses were from ground launched SAMs. In fact I believe that F-16s shot down all the Serbian MiG 29s that tried to intervene in the air war.

USA a real great country with superior Air Forces and army unable to handle even with weakest opponents by it's self, always create a coalition. this is the sighn of real great power.

The NATO coalition was mainly for political reasons. The US could have thumped Serbia from aircraft carriers and bases in the United States had it so wished.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Serb
Again, Shuttle unable to fly without pilot, Buran can.

The Shuttle was never intended to. The technology has existed for a long time so that it can be piloted without the pilot. Most of the actual controls are done by computers on board, and the pilots actually just tell them what to do when. The same thing can be accomplished via remote control, but the current missions revolve around putting humans into space, so the humans control it themself.

The most important thing is LANDING, could you imagine how difficult for pilot to land a space ship after space flight? The landing is the most dangerous part of the space flight, and Americans still unable to make and automatic mode for landing the thing why Buran is unique spaceship.

Landing is actually automated already. I swear to God.
Computers time thrusters to ensure they enter at the precise angle required, ILS systems line up the space shuttle with the runway and touch down.

I've seen TV shows on it. Really cool stuff.

[Drekkus]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
The Il-2 was the only plane that the Finnish soldiers feared and respected during the WW2. Finnish air force at that time: Brewster Buffalo and Me-109 fighters. Great combination.

They flew Fokker D-XXI as well.

I have to agree with AH, the Fokker D-VII was specifically mentioned in the Versailles Treaty.

[Lancer]

Drekkus, sure AH is right, but weren't ALL German military aircraft outlawed by Versailles?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Case
BTW Serb, be careful when praising 'advanced' Russian weapons. Lots of fancy weapons and techs introduced by the Soviets turned out to be little more then pipe dreams, especially when you take into account the limited Soviet/Russian capacity to build and maintain precision weapons.

Well, if you talking about the SU-47 "Berkut" the fighter of fifth generation which picture I've posted on previous page, then I saw with my own eyes how this "pipe dream" flying, flying like space fighters from "Star Wars", aside I don't see how F-22 is flying, I've only see a pictures and read some articles about F-22. So, I prefer to trust my own eyes, and as for me, your F-22 is more the "pipe dream" than our fighter.

Not true. All the NATO losses were from ground launched SAMs. In fact I believe that F-16s shot down all the Serbian MiG 29s that tried to intervene in the air war.

Serbian Air forces have only FEW MIG-29 (five or seven don't remember exact number) of old versions, the majority of their AF consisted of very old MIGs, like Mig-21, Mig-23 etc. and you have ten times more planes then they are. Their AF has no chance to win vs such quntity of NATO planes. But as I remember they shoot down a couple of your planes.
As for SAM, yes I suppose you right and majority of you casalties was because of SAM, but again it was old, very old, soviet times SAM batteries- S-75. And even those old SAMs were able to shoot down your super modern planes like F-117 for example. If Serbs were able to buy a half of dozen of our more modern SAM like S-300 (btw, not the latest and not the most efficent version of our SAM), then your losses were absolutely different.

The NATO coalition was mainly for political reasons. The US could have thumped Serbia from aircraft carriers and bases in the United States had it so wished.

Yeah, like in Iraq in Yougoslavia, like in Afghanistan. Allways need allies. True sighn of great power.

Landing is actually automated already. I swear to God.
Computers time thrusters to ensure they enter at the precise angle required, ILS systems line up the space shuttle with the runway and touch down.
I've seen TV shows on it. Really cool stuff.

My congratullations.
When did you saw that show?
I saw the same show in 80s of last century, when Buran taked off, made a space flight and successfuly landed without any human on board.
P.S. I found a link on English about history of Buran. All claims that Buran is rip of NASA shuttle is bu.. I mean not true. We started creation of such system earlier.
Few qoutes: "SPIRAL is the project opening the history of aerospace systems creation. The work at the project began in A. Mikoyan Bureau 4 years after Gagarin's space flight."
"The SPIRAL test flight helped to solve the problem of non-stability at gliding with a high angle of attach during a preliminary study of landing for a new aerospace Systems. This problem has not been solved for experimental American lifting-body vehicles such as HL-10, M2-F2, X-38."

http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm

[Drekkus]

Originally posted by Lancer
Drekkus, sure AH is right, but weren't ALL German military aircraft outlawed by Versailles?

Yes, but the D-VII was the only one specified.

Reparation of the Fokker D.VII as the best fighter of Great War was confirmed in article IV of Versailles Treaty about Armistice: "… surrender in condition by the Germans armies of the following war material: … 1700 airplanes, fighters, bombers - firstly, all of the D-7's - and all the night bombing machines …".

[Lancer]

Thanks Drekkus, I didn't know that.

Know anything about the allied plane that achieved air superiority? Sadly I don't, except that I know there was one.

[Drekkus]

The Sopwith Camel is the most widely known. It was a good plane but very difficult to fly, spinned easily.
The Sopwith Snipe, it's follow up, is regarded as the best allied plane. But it only went into service late in the war, so had less impact.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Case

P-40 could generally handle Zeros (due to its higher speed in a dive).

Well I have heard the dive speed described by Australian pilots of the time as the "only" advantage the P40 had in dog fights with zero's. It was used in desperation. The zero outperformed the P40 in virtually every other way.

[Serb]

Just found funny picture, it calls "MiG-and-F-15"