+FastCargo Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 Yeah but the player was the F-5 (or is that a T-38 not sure of the difference) What's your goal? Flying the B-52 and launching the X-15, or being the X-15 getting launched by the B-52? If it's the first part, that's easy. If it's the second part, it's tougher, but doable, as the picture shows. FastCargo Quote
+FastCargo Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Very different design philosophies... The XF-103 has been updated quite a bit...sent it back to Wrench,The for his evaluation. The FM is just about done...handles just like you'd think an aircraft like this would handle...turns like a brick. She'll do Mach 3+ and can cruise at 60000+ feet but takes a while to get there...the ramjet doesn't get efficient until above Mach 1. Front weapons bays are full automatic, we've finally figured out why automatic bays only work in certain situations. Rear weapon bays are manual...and the AI will use rockets in air to air combat. After playing with this for a while, I can tell you, she was definitely built with only one thing in mind...to be a high speed point interceptor against non-manuvering bombers. Anything else, she's pretty much out of her element (maybe a high speed tac recon platform)... FastCargo Quote
+76.IAP-Blackbird Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Thanks for infomations, will looking for this baby! Quote
kct Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Someone should try to get Lexx's attention. Quote
Silverbolt Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Someone should try to get Lexx's attention. oh yeah, he's the 60's head over here. Quote
Viggen Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 That looks really cool. Somewhat scary, but cool. And can I bee the first to say that the MiG-17 in the picture looks amazing. Quote
fallenphoenix1986 Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 was just thinking about this one yesterday, saw a clip about it on the military history chanel: "secret aircraft of the superpowers"" or omething like that. Craig Quote
+Wrench Posted October 24, 2008 Author Posted October 24, 2008 Had it up to mach 3.53 a little while ago, at 42-odd thousand feet. Takes a little time to 'build up a head of steam', but it gets there. I'm reminded of Zaphod Bebbelbrox's quote about some space-car thingy in the original "Hitchhiker Guide"... "looks like fish, moves like a fish...turns like a cow" but it most assuredily goes fast in a straight line!!!!! Haven't tested it against SAMs yet...wonder if it'll outrun a Guideline.....hmmmm..... Wrench kevin stein Quote
+Spectre_USA Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 Ooo, cool, so you added the "Infinite Improbability" engine? That should increase the odds to 1,425,327.1 to 1, and falling... Quote
+Wrench Posted October 24, 2008 Author Posted October 24, 2008 Hmm..that would explain why the Tu-16s turned into pots of flowers and a very surprised looking whale, after dropping out of 'burner. Now, if we could just do something abou the AIM-4A & Bs.....they don't even hit the ground!!! I mean, they don't even track!! But the FFARs work!!! Wrench kevin stein Quote
+FastCargo Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 That was the thing I noticed too...the AIM-4 series...kinda suck! Hell, you'd be better off using them as FFARs... FastCargo Quote
kct Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 oh yeah, he's the 60's head over here. Or maybe he is cooking up a secret plot to take down the Thunderwarrior through an even more insane PVO interceptor? Quote
Rambler 1-1 Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 (edited) wow, it seems that designers in the 50's/60's weren't much interested in turning... and I thought the F-4 was bad. The only thing that coud knock that sucker down is, well, anything that has the luck of finding it below mach 2. What's approach speed? Edited October 25, 2008 by Rambler 1-1 Quote
winterhunter Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Now, if we could just do something abou the AIM-4A & Bs.....they don't even hit the ground!!! I mean, they don't even track!!But the FFARs work!!! Wrench kevin stein If you are planning on doing the follow-up version (the one with 4xAIM-4s, 2xAIM-47s and no FFARs), I could come up with a nice looking AIM-47.... Quote
zmatt Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 When is this beast due for release? 2 weeks? Quote
+FastCargo Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 That diagram depicts the XF-103, which by that point had evolved into a test airframe only for testing the radar and AIM-47 missile to be later used in the F-108. My F-103 is to be based on the original proposed short range interceptor version, with the AIM-4s and FFARs. FC Quote
+76.IAP-Blackbird Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 Is the F-109 somewhere as WIP? here a interesting F-8A version from NASA Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.