The most beautiful jet fighter ever made

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I live 45min away from a small airport/museum where they have a flying ME 262. I saw one in the air while driving on the Autobahn passing the airport. Couldn't believe my eyes when I first saw it.
They have a website. Check out the videos.

https://www.flugmuseum-messerschmitt.de/

For me it's the F-104 all the way.

That's a GREAT link Leo. :D Thanks for sharing it!
 
I'll throw a word out for the Gaping Cold War death machine.
F86.JPG

What always made me chuckle is that there's a possibility it accidentally went supersonic first during a dive,
 
Below find details on why the F-16 was and is so exceptional, and not just in appearance. I don't love it so much simply because I had the great fortune to work on it. It's just that the F-16 to this day remains exceptional at what it does, a brilliant and revolutionary design.:

Lightweight Fighter program (the origin of the F-16)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program

The Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program was a United States Air Force technology evaluation program initiated in the 1960s by a group of officers and defense analysts known as the "Fighter Mafia". It was spurred by then-Major John Boyd's [incredibly imporant] Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory.

John Boyd (military strategist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)

He was dubbed "Forty Second Boyd" for his standing bet as an instructor pilot [at the Fighter Weapons School at Nellis AFB, NV] that beginning from a position of disadvantage, he could defeat any opposing pilot in air combat maneuvering in less than 40 seconds. (and he regularly did - W)

E-M theory became the world standard for the design of fighter aircraft. At a time when the Air Force's FX project (subsequently the F-15) was foundering, Boyd's deployment orders to Vietnam were canceled and he was brought to the Pentagon to re-do the trade-off studies according to E-M. His work helped save the project from being a costly dud, even though its final product was larger and heavier than he desired. However, cancellation of that tour in Vietnam meant that Boyd would be one of the most important air-to-air combat strategists with no combat kills.

With Colonel Everest Riccioni and Pierre Sprey, Boyd formed a small advocacy group within Headquarters USAF that dubbed itself the "Fighter Mafia". Riccioni was an Air Force fighter pilot assigned to a staff position in Research and Development, while Sprey was a civilian statistician working in systems analysis.

According to his biographer, Robert Coram, Boyd was also known at different points of his career as "The Mad Major" for the intensity of his passions, as "Genghis John" for his confrontational style of interpersonal discussion, and as the "Ghetto Colonel" for his spartan lifestyle. On his retirement in 1975 he was awarded the prestigious Harold Brown Award by the US Air Force.


---------

A documentary detailing why it was so revolutionary in so many ways. As far as I'm concerned, this is the most important advance in air-to-air jet fighter aircraft design during the entire cold war (v1.0) era... period. It's just like the brilliant at its job A-10, specifically designed for a specific and limited mission, the F-16 being designed for and BY fighter pilots. Both the F-16 and A-10 were designed for specific missions and NOT to be jacks of all trades, but masters of none.:

[video=youtube;jz7BeHoxVts]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz7BeHoxVts[/video]

Another documentary:

[video=youtube;M2bbiizYFYg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2bbiizYFYg[/video]

Flights (they Photoshopped that air-to-air missile in...):

[video=youtube;GMaH8FIvFmE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMaH8FIvFmE[/video]

[video=youtube;GAnIBFcwiL4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAnIBFcwiL4[/video]

Web site dedicated to the F-16 with F-22 and F-35 sections:

https://www.f-16.net/
 
At 32:12 in the first documentary, when they say "Considered by some to be the penultimate competition of it's kind" do they mean second to last or use the word incorrectly?
 
CF-105 Arrow anyone?
Its planform and name sure fit together. Had a funky way of opening canopy too.



I find myself partial to delta wings.
And I'm not entirely sure what my precise definition of beautiful would be.
SAAB Viggen draws my attention.
As does Douglas F4D.
I'm sure A-10 would be of angelic level beauty to ground pounders.
Somehow, shape of F-4 Phantom's main landing gear doors brings to mind raptor talons.
Hawker Sea Hawk was a graceful little thing.
 
I'd do anything to get a ride around the world in a SR-71!
Not a fighter, it has no offensive or defensive capabilities other than it's speed.
It's what a jet plane is suppose to look like.

Mine's an A12, the Air Force variant and I do believe it had an air-to-air "solution". Very limited to two missiles if I remember right. One variant I saw had a gun buried the fuselage, a 20 or 30mm cannon with the muzzle right next to the cockpit. I think all were prototypes and the CIA didn't like the Air Force having it's own supersonic spyplane...
 
Mine's an A12, the Air Force variant and I do believe it had an air-to-air "solution". Very limited to two missiles if I remember right. One variant I saw had a gun buried the fuselage, a 20 or 30mm cannon with the muzzle right next to the cockpit. I think all were prototypes and the CIA didn't like the Air Force having it's own supersonic spyplane...

A-12 was the CIA variant, flew a bit faster and higher than the SR-71 and preceded the SR-71 but was less capable. It required a direct overflight of targets. Most carried USAF markings( They required the support of the Air Force) but were operated by the CIA. The SR-71 was a two seat variant used by the Air Force. It was heavier but carried more equipment as well as countermeasures. It did not need to directly overfly a target with it's added equipment! The resulting fly off between the two resulted in the retirement of the A-12. The YF-12A was an outgrowth of the SR-71. Designed as a high speed interceptor, it carried 3 AIM-47 missiles (later redesigned and used on the F-14 as the AIM-54 ). Performance was on par with the SR-71. None of the variants carried a gun.
 
Didn't the A12 have a longer tail section? Or am I thinking of a SR-71 variant?

"HERE" is some interesting data.

Something else I came upon...

M-21 Blackbird Aircraft

The Lockheed M-21 Blackbird is a unique variant of the A-12, the earliest Blackbird type. Built for a CIA program code-named "Tagboard," the M-21 carried unpiloted Lockheed D-21 vehicles for intelligence gathering. These drones were intended for launch from the M-21 "mother ship" for flights over hostile territories. Design features of the M-21 include the second seat for the Launch Control Officer and the launch pylon on which the drone is mounted. The sole surviving M-21 was built in 1963, and today is on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.

Found a pic, but no info;
2e6a1eba78b1a5f1dd6be69b55a73f01.jpg


"TAIL ART", but 959 listed...
 
Last edited:
Didn't the A12 have a longer tail section? Or am I thinking of a SR-71 variant?

"HERE" is some interesting data.

Something else I came upon...

M-21 Blackbird Aircraft

The Lockheed M-21 Blackbird is a unique variant of the A-12, the earliest Blackbird type. Built for a CIA program code-named "Tagboard," the M-21 carried unpiloted Lockheed D-21 vehicles for intelligence gathering. These drones were intended for launch from the M-21 "mother ship" for flights over hostile territories. Design features of the M-21 include the second seat for the Launch Control Officer and the launch pylon on which the drone is mounted. The sole surviving M-21 was built in 1963, and today is on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.

----71.jpg----I know at least one M-21 was lost launching a D-21 on a test . I believe the D-21 separated and then came back down on the M-21 , breaking her back! The LCO lost his life. The D-21 never really was a successful venture. There were some carried by B-52's but by all accounts it was a dead end. There are films on Youtube--the amazing thing about them----they were filmed by an A-12 in formation at Mach 3+ !!!!
 
17959 Is on display at Eglin. It was given a larger tail to house more equipment but proved to be no more effective than the standard tail section. There was no loss of performance. Plans were dropped to retrofit other SR's with this modification.
 
As an aside, The M-21/D-21 did serve as inspiration for the GI Joe toy Cobra Night Raven (not a far stretch from Blackbird). I remember thinking it was pretty cool when I got one for Christmas around 1987. I probably still have it in a box somewhere...

nightraven01.jpg
 
A few interesting notes about the "BLACK BIRDS"

None were lost in combat operations
Over 800 missiles were fired at them in South East Asia
They are considered the first true "stealth" aircraft
The top speed is still classified--Mach 3.3 is confirmed--Mach 3.5 is unconfirmed over Libya--( a friend of mine-older than me--flew A-12's and would never would tell me the top end !!)
Cost was about $100,000 per flight hour
Turn around was about one week per aircraft for missions ( basically they had to go back and tighten everything up after a flight )
Design work was done with slide rulers,pencils and paper
It is still the fastest air breathing manned aircraft ever flown
On it's last flight to a museum , it set four new records!!!
All of the records set by the "BLACK BIRD" were by operational aircraft---not stripped down variants!!!
Because of heating, the windscreen was pure quartz---ok that's cool!
The aircraft "grew" several inches at operating temps---SR-71-1.jpg
 
A few interesting notes about the "BLACK BIRDS"

None were lost in combat operations
Over 800 missiles were fired at them in South East Asia
They are considered the first true "stealth" aircraft
The top speed is still classified--Mach 3.3 is confirmed--Mach 3.5 is unconfirmed over Libya--( a friend of mine-older than me--flew A-12's and would never tell me the top end !!)
Cost was about $100,000 per flight hour
Turn around was about one week per aircraft for missions ( basically they had to go back and tighten everything up after a flight )
Design work was done with slide rulers,pencils and paper
It is still the fastest air breathing manned aircraft ever flown
On it's last flight to a museum , it set four new records!!!
All of the records set by the "BLACK BIRD" were by operational aircraft---not stripped down variants!!!
Because of heating, the windscreen was pure quartz---ok that's cool!
The aircraft "grew" several inches at operating temps---View attachment 323362

I've heard as well that they leak like a sieve on the tarmac, due to things not sealed very well (not "stretched" into proper specs) and had to be quickly refueled once in flight & warmed up (grown a bit). I've also heard that this was just condensation under the bird before flight..
 
It was not condensation, the fuel tanks did leak fuel until the aircraft skin was at operating temps and the the tanks were sealed.
Part of the reason for partial fueling was to reduce stress on the wheels and landing gear.
 
It was not condensation, the fuel tanks did leak fuel until the aircraft skin was at operating temps and the the tanks were sealed.
Part of the reason for partial fueling was to reduce stress on the wheels and landing gear.

"Yes, it's leaking now, But as soon as you get going, it'll be fine!"

See, that's the kind of idea that would get an engineering student laughed out of their professor's office, And Yet It Was Done!

edit: Also, if you want to see some F-16s and F-35s being cool, go watch Transformers: Last Knight
 
I've heard as well that they leak like a sieve on the tarmac, due to things not sealed very well (not "stretched" into proper specs) and had to be quickly refueled once in flight & warmed up (grown a bit). I've also heard that this was just condensation under the bird before flight..

Yes they leaked fuel until they reached operating temps. It was designed that way!!! They typically took off with a lite fuel load and tanked off before climbing to altitude. As they reached cruise altitude and speed they heated up and everything sealed up. This was typical at the start of a mission--during the mission they would tank off several times but the aircraft was heat soaked and didn't leak during these operations --it was timed in minutes---they immediately climbed back to altitude and speed after tanking. Upon landing they were still hot! They did not fly around in a pattern but came straight in from altitude. Of interest-- since they tanked at a higher speed than regular aircraft--- the boom on the tankers had high speed fins installed. The tankers were SR specific --used only for the "BLACK BIRD"
 
Ya know, we sort of high jacked the thread with the SR-71! Here's one for you--those other guys make some pretty planes as well! SU-47--SU-47.jpg
 
Yes they leaked fuel until they reached operating temps. It was designed that way!!! They typically took off with a lite fuel load and tanked off before climbing to altitude. As they reached cruise altitude and speed they heated up and everything sealed up. This was typical at the start of a mission--during the mission they would tank off several times but the aircraft was heat soaked and didn't leak during these operations --it was timed in minutes---they immediately climbed back to altitude and speed after tanking. Upon landing they were still hot! They did not fly around in a pattern but came straight in from altitude. Of interest-- since they tanked at a higher speed than regular aircraft--- the boom on the tankers had high speed fins installed. The tankers were SR specific --used only for the "BLACK BIRD"

Went to a talk by a former SR71 pilot/instructor recently.

The SR71 had to fly really slow, and the tanker aircraft really fast, just so they could match velocities. Complicating things was that the fill port for the SR71 was at the rear of the aircraft. To achieve full tanks the SR71 had do go into a nosedown attitude to top off the tanks fully, meaning the tanker had to follow of course. So the final part of refueling involved a dive!

They were compulsory afterburner too.

When he discussed "unstarts", where one engine would lose thrust, he said the first thing to determine was which engine had unstarted. That was easy as the side of the cockpit hit you quite hard and the engine that suffered the unstart was on the other side :eek: At that point you had only a few seconds to deal with the problem.
 
Went to a talk by a former SR71 pilot/instructor recently.

The SR71 had to fly really slow, and the tanker aircraft really fast, just so they could match velocities. Complicating things was that the fill port for the SR71 was at the rear of the aircraft. To achieve full tanks the SR71 had do go into a nosedown attitude to top off the tanks fully, meaning the tanker had to follow of course. So the final part of refueling involved a dive!

They were compulsory afterburner too.

When he discussed "unstarts", where one engine would lose thrust, he said the first thing to determine was which engine had unstarted. That was easy as the side of the cockpit hit you quite hard and the engine that suffered the unstart was on the other side :eek: At that point you had only a few seconds to deal with the problem.

Ya know, I need to talk to my buddy about that (unstarts), never came up in a conversation. He flew A-12's which, I think ,were more prone to the problem. I'll do a follow up next time we get together!
 
Afaik the X-29's were not scaled at all. A model of one was built for display, but both of the actual aircraft were built full size and the year was 1984.

You might have missed my point--The X-29 was a small , purely test bed aircraft. The SU-47 was a full size test bed with provisions for weapons and radar.
 
Back
Top