@KangaKangaTheRoo I showed this video to a coworker who was on a carrier back in the 90's. He told me this crazy story about a F-18 pilot who accidentally released a bomb while the plane was getting ready for takeoff. According to him, everybody crapped their pants and then got back to work. Safety features are so important.
@KangaKangaTheRoo There are a couple things that have to happen for the warhead to arm or the rocket to fire. However, it's still a tube full of highly flammable rocket fuel and explosives rolling down the deck at 80mph. It's impressive how effective the safety features were, even back then, but it's still pretty freaky.
RADAR was the entire point. You misunderstand. The Germans had more planes, but they didn't send more planes. Over the course of the battle, England had 1,963 aircraft to the Luftwaffe's 2550. In fact, Germany even scored more aerial victories than the UK but it didn't matter because bailing out over England meant that an RAF pilot would be issued a new plane later that week and a German pilot would spend the next 5 years in prison.
During any one raid, the Third Reich would usually send 65 bombers escorted by 35 fighters and they'd be detected at long range by CHAIN-HOME radar network. Central RAF command would estimate the size and direction of the force and order an appropriate number of Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons to respond. An appropriate number. None of this "1 to 10" foolishness you see in the movies. If there were 40 ME-109's then the RAF would send over 40 Hurricanes and 20 Spitfires. Radar allowed England to use only the number of planes they needed, and keep the rest ready for the next attack. On the other hand, Germany had no idea what to expect and often sent formations across the Channel unprepared and outnumbered.
The quality of German pilots did not fade until after the Battle of Britain, mostly as a result of the battle itself but also because of the unbelievably high losses on the Eastern Front.
The Luftwaffe had already fought in the Spanish Civil War and conquered seven different countries by the time they attacked England. Not only did they have more experienced pilots than the RAF, but the English pilots only experience came from their disastrous and limited attempts to defend France.
Germany only ran short of experienced pilots after the Battle of Britain because the battle itself was so costly.
@CharlesDeGaulle The Luftwaffe had the most experienced pilots in the world during the Battle of Britain. They lost because of bad planning on the part of high Command and because the RAF had a sophisticated radar system that allowed them to carefully respond to German attacks.
IMO Rafale is like a modern day F-16: small, agile, versatile and widely available for export. I imagine it is pure ecstacy to fly such a plane.
My only real disagreement here is with the word "best." I do not think any plane can ever be considered "best" because circumstances can change so much. Kings can become peasants, and peasants can be kings, so to speak.
Also, I really don't understand why it's so popular to criticize the J-20 when nobody really understands it's actual specifications or capabilities.
Yup. I did that. My greatest sin was forgetting to disable collisions on the propeller of my most upvoted plane, as a result the engine wont start until you fix it.
Excuse me, sir. I'm going to need you to fill out the information on this diagram as to which aircraft currently in service with Her Majesty's Armed Forces correspond with the various portions of a full English breakfast. Thank you for your time.
@Numbers You are right on the money. Does the pilot have support from ground radar or AWACS? Wingmen? What's the weather conditions? Experience, training, fatigue. There are so many external factors, but the pilot herself is the biggest variable. Pakistan recently experienced this when they lost one of their F-16's to an aging MiG-21 with an expert at the controls.
@K2K The US also used a rocket called the M8, which launched from tubes instead of individual racks like the HVAR. Aircraft would carry the tubes lashed together in a triple-launcher called the M-10. It wasn't as powerful as the HVAR, but it was certainly quite destructive and still much easier to use than regular bombs.
@CharlesDeGaulle The Rafale is undoubtedly an excellent fighter. But comparing it to stealth aircraft with specialized roles like J20 or F-35 doesn't make sense. Would the Rafale pilot even be aware of the enemy in time to respond? Who can say. I do not have much faith in Chinese technology, but it is not wise to assume supremacy over an unknown enemy.
Your statements regarding the F-22 are outright silly. Maneuverability and speed are pointless against an enemy that is invisible to your sensors and able to target you from beyond visual range. Furthermore, even in a dogfight, modern aircraft are only limited by the g-force tolerance of the pilot, not the plane itself.
"Best" is not something decided beforehand on paper. The Brewster Buffalo was profoundly inferior in terms of performance, but during the Winter War Finland was able to amass a kill ratio of almost 60-1 against the much larger Soviet VVS. Would I classify Rafale as a more potent fighter plane, one on one, in a dogfight with a J-20? Sure. But what about the costs and difficulties in buying, maintaining, training and arming a supply chain of aircraft, mechanics, facilities, weapons and pilots? That's another story altogether, the Chinese design might be a much better value.
@DilophDilophTheDumDum Foolish bourgeoisie puppet! I can clearly see this is a weak western attempt to recreate the elegant design of our Invincible Mikoyan Gurevich MiG 21. But you have clearly failed, your western fake is too fat! Once again, the Soviet Colossus is victorious over capitalism.
But seriously, if you guys devoted half the energy towards learning how to make things, instead of arguing about upvotes, we'd all be platinum many times over.
@watabe If you look up some high rated tanks and take them apart, you'll see that they use knobby wheels that have been scaled down with XML to be almost flat. They also disable collisions so they can place a string of them that looks just like real tank tracks. I hope this helps. I really like your tank. Good luck
@WarshipWarshipTheDude I should've deleted that. There are a lot of really great question posts on here that shouldn't be confused with these terrible "is X dead?" posts.
Here's a tip for this forum (and any kind of media). Whenever the title is a question, the answer is "No" and the article is CLICKBAIT. Thank you for listening to my TED talk, have a nice day.
You're asking the wrong question. This isn't a game about upvotes, it's a game about building things. Upvotes are random, and you cant control them. The only thing you can control is what you build.
I really like how you built the fuselage. The panel folds strongly resemble the rivet lines of a real plane and it creates a really cool effect. You've got a real talent for this.
@RogueFighter Good eye
@KangaKangaTheRoo I showed this video to a coworker who was on a carrier back in the 90's. He told me this crazy story about a F-18 pilot who accidentally released a bomb while the plane was getting ready for takeoff. According to him, everybody crapped their pants and then got back to work. Safety features are so important.
+1@KangaKangaTheRoo There are a couple things that have to happen for the warhead to arm or the rocket to fire. However, it's still a tube full of highly flammable rocket fuel and explosives rolling down the deck at 80mph. It's impressive how effective the safety features were, even back then, but it's still pretty freaky.
+1@PointlessWhyshouldi That's ok, it took me like 18 months to post it. Thanks
@CharlesDeGaulle
RADAR was the entire point. You misunderstand. The Germans had more planes, but they didn't send more planes. Over the course of the battle, England had 1,963 aircraft to the Luftwaffe's 2550. In fact, Germany even scored more aerial victories than the UK but it didn't matter because bailing out over England meant that an RAF pilot would be issued a new plane later that week and a German pilot would spend the next 5 years in prison.
During any one raid, the Third Reich would usually send 65 bombers escorted by 35 fighters and they'd be detected at long range by CHAIN-HOME radar network. Central RAF command would estimate the size and direction of the force and order an appropriate number of Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons to respond. An appropriate number. None of this "1 to 10" foolishness you see in the movies. If there were 40 ME-109's then the RAF would send over 40 Hurricanes and 20 Spitfires. Radar allowed England to use only the number of planes they needed, and keep the rest ready for the next attack. On the other hand, Germany had no idea what to expect and often sent formations across the Channel unprepared and outnumbered.
The quality of German pilots did not fade until after the Battle of Britain, mostly as a result of the battle itself but also because of the unbelievably high losses on the Eastern Front.
@CharlesDeGaulle Bruh.
The Luftwaffe had already fought in the Spanish Civil War and conquered seven different countries by the time they attacked England. Not only did they have more experienced pilots than the RAF, but the English pilots only experience came from their disastrous and limited attempts to defend France.
Germany only ran short of experienced pilots after the Battle of Britain because the battle itself was so costly.
+1My apologies for blocking you. I have no idea how that happened.
@KnightOfRen No idea, I'll unblock him. Sometimes I accidentally block ppl when I try to respond etc.
Theres only two ppl I have blocked that I know why, biltbio and banban. Because they both spend all their time trolling.
+1@CharlesDeGaulle The Luftwaffe had the most experienced pilots in the world during the Battle of Britain. They lost because of bad planning on the part of high Command and because the RAF had a sophisticated radar system that allowed them to carefully respond to German attacks.
IMO Rafale is like a modern day F-16: small, agile, versatile and widely available for export. I imagine it is pure ecstacy to fly such a plane.
My only real disagreement here is with the word "best." I do not think any plane can ever be considered "best" because circumstances can change so much. Kings can become peasants, and peasants can be kings, so to speak.
Also, I really don't understand why it's so popular to criticize the J-20 when nobody really understands it's actual specifications or capabilities.
@MrSilverwolf you're gonna want to see this one. This guys only been posting for 3 weeks and his G-A are pretty good.
Yup. I did that. My greatest sin was forgetting to disable collisions on the propeller of my most upvoted plane, as a result the engine wont start until you fix it.
Excuse me, sir. I'm going to need you to fill out the information on this diagram as to which aircraft currently in service with Her Majesty's Armed Forces correspond with the various portions of a full English breakfast. Thank you for your time.
+1@Numbers You are right on the money. Does the pilot have support from ground radar or AWACS? Wingmen? What's the weather conditions? Experience, training, fatigue. There are so many external factors, but the pilot herself is the biggest variable. Pakistan recently experienced this when they lost one of their F-16's to an aging MiG-21 with an expert at the controls.
E-P rules!
+1@K2K The US also used a rocket called the M8, which launched from tubes instead of individual racks like the HVAR. Aircraft would carry the tubes lashed together in a triple-launcher called the M-10. It wasn't as powerful as the HVAR, but it was certainly quite destructive and still much easier to use than regular bombs.
+2@K2K The SP rocket is based off of the 5 inch High Velocity Aircraft Rocket (HVAR) used by US forces in WW2 and the Korean War.
Don't call her fat, she's thicc.
+1@5Ewok I seriously doubt the pilot was blamed. The rocket clearly broke loose when the arresting gear shook the plane to a stop.
+2@CharlesDeGaulle The Rafale is undoubtedly an excellent fighter. But comparing it to stealth aircraft with specialized roles like J20 or F-35 doesn't make sense. Would the Rafale pilot even be aware of the enemy in time to respond? Who can say. I do not have much faith in Chinese technology, but it is not wise to assume supremacy over an unknown enemy.
Your statements regarding the F-22 are outright silly. Maneuverability and speed are pointless against an enemy that is invisible to your sensors and able to target you from beyond visual range. Furthermore, even in a dogfight, modern aircraft are only limited by the g-force tolerance of the pilot, not the plane itself.
@ReinMcDeer Exactly
Boeing: "Get in, loser! We strapped a bunch of AGM's to this passenger jet and we're gonna cruise around the Pacific lookin for noobs."
US Navy: "You crazy beautiful genius, I'm in!"
+5"Best" is not something decided beforehand on paper. The Brewster Buffalo was profoundly inferior in terms of performance, but during the Winter War Finland was able to amass a kill ratio of almost 60-1 against the much larger Soviet VVS. Would I classify Rafale as a more potent fighter plane, one on one, in a dogfight with a J-20? Sure. But what about the costs and difficulties in buying, maintaining, training and arming a supply chain of aircraft, mechanics, facilities, weapons and pilots? That's another story altogether, the Chinese design might be a much better value.
+1Excellent work, comrade. Give Papa Stalin a kiss.
+1@PrinzEugen99 It's just a joke. Also, my name is cursing an American plane.
@DilophDilophTheDumDum Foolish bourgeoisie puppet! I can clearly see this is a weak western attempt to recreate the elegant design of our Invincible Mikoyan Gurevich MiG 21. But you have clearly failed, your western fake is too fat! Once again, the Soviet Colossus is victorious over capitalism.
I'd love to see more posts like this, but I'd settle for more people taking the advice.
Your Fishbed is much too fat. Fat. Fat. Fat.
You've got some impressive skills
I would recommend CAS because fighter jets tend to be supersonic, and it takes practice to make decent supersonic planes in SP.
For modern ground attack aircraft, I suggest you look at
Su-25 "Frogfoot"
A-10 "Warthog"
For something older, but really cool, check out
A-37 "Dragonfly"
+1A-4 "Skyhawk"
What about WW2 biplanes?
U-238 isn't even the best isotope of uranium. SMH
U-235
But seriously, if you guys devoted half the energy towards learning how to make things, instead of arguing about upvotes, we'd all be platinum many times over.
+2@watabe If you look up some high rated tanks and take them apart, you'll see that they use knobby wheels that have been scaled down with XML to be almost flat. They also disable collisions so they can place a string of them that looks just like real tank tracks. I hope this helps. I really like your tank. Good luck
This tank is cool. Do you know how to make tank treads?
Me: "Oh, a track! Ethan will love- wait, mobile friendly? Oh, that kind of track."
No thanks
The sneetches
Peoples Liberation Army Navy confirmed
+10This thing looks awesome
@WarshipWarshipTheDude I should've deleted that. There are a lot of really great question posts on here that shouldn't be confused with these terrible "is X dead?" posts.
Here's a tip for this forum (and any kind of media). Whenever the title is a question, the answer is "No" and the article is CLICKBAIT. Thank you for listening to my TED talk, have a nice day.
+3Totally awesome
The last of the V8 interceptors
Dang
Cool, I get to be the first to congratulate you on such a nice plane.
Can't be any worse than all the fan-service thumbnails I see on here every day.
+1You're asking the wrong question. This isn't a game about upvotes, it's a game about building things. Upvotes are random, and you cant control them. The only thing you can control is what you build.
+1Ok
You have our permission.
+2I really like how you built the fuselage. The panel folds strongly resemble the rivet lines of a real plane and it creates a really cool effect. You've got a real talent for this.
Apple is Satan