Now lets see your's!

See my sig pic.

quote:

Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:



Now lets see your's!

where's the propeller?

Guess it wasn´t in the Budget?
Otherwise my favorite plane would be this baby, but I have my doubts I will ever see it on IL2 or SOW

Its a jet!

Stalkervision and RSS-Martin clearly need to look more closely - haven't they seen a jet biplane before?

Edit -------------

Rats! Owl beat me to it with his reply.

Has anyone ever built a jet biplane?

Got interrupted editing. But added my favorite plane in the post above.

What would the point of a jet be on a bi-plane that is braced and dangling it's gear like that? Would be better on something like the I-153 with an eclosed pit - much cleaner, allows for the jet engine to be used to greater advantage.

Anyway, for inclusion in the game? Or just overall? The latter can be an impossible question to answer.

So for the former -



Yes, we have a 3D model, but a borked FM. Lose the drag chute and then it might actually be IN the sim.





And finally, a 229 with 262-HGII engines in it.

Then the sim would truly be complete.

(oh wait, and MW-50 on the Pfeil)

More pure-sexiness pics over there:

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/f-104-tribute/

Brems beat me to it.

Wings? Where we're going we don't need wings.





Also:

I remember seeing a photo of an I16 with ramjets on the wings.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Has anyone ever built a jet biplane?

PZL M15

Ah, those wacky poles

Im with the F104 Starfighter guys ...pure class...seems strange that a 'fussier' designed plane like the F4 Phantom would be faster.The Starfighter really was like a winged bullet.

Wacky Poles indeed.

Still, give it a couple of 30mm cannon and a bomb rack, and it would be perfect for ground attack...

The thing about jets is they don't develop much power at low speeds without using loads of fuel.
The thing about biplanes is they have large drag well below 300 kph, and fixed gear just makes it worse.

But if you want a very short range biplane with afterburner flame out the tail, there's still better ways
to do it like running some kind of turboprop that'll give you a lot more acceleration, turn and climb.

Stealth Owl should maybe look into Rise of Flight.

quote:

seems strange that a 'fussier' designed plane like the F4 Phantom would be faster.The Starfighter really was like a winged bullet.

It wasn't - at least not in operational use.

The Zipper would go M 2.5 non-tweaked (Tom Delashaw did get there in a 104C and stated it was still accelerating at the point he took the throttle back), whereas a flightline-Rhino would never go there.
Officially, the 104 was cleared M 2.0 (A-D) and M 2.2 (CF,G,J,S) but it really would go faster without much trouble - if you didn't mind overheating your engine-duct and fuselage.

The slatted Rhino-versions were limited to M 1.9 which is the same as a Zipper with tip-tanks.

BTW: the Zip could sustain a 7G-turn, just like the Rhino at pretty much the same speed (450~470 kts).
So it wasn't that bad in sustained turning-performance for it's day.

Of course the Vulcan!


i mean

quote:

Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

Anyway, for inclusion in the game? Or just overall? The latter can be an impossible question to answer.

So for the former -



Yes, we have a 3D model, but a borked FM. Lose the drag chute and then it might actually be IN the sim.

Agree 110% with WEP. Plus a Grumman Duck.