International Orange - X Planes and Early Spacecraft

Kikes are parasites, there is no one in space to parasitize on. It's like putting a leech into an aquarium with no fish in it, it's not going to create a leech civilization, it's just going to starve to death. I'm sure if we discover aliens the kikes will be the first to form embassies and banks on their homeworld.

My point was why bother? In the time it takes to get from Earth to the new world, terraform, industrialise, set up, prepare, and travel back all that will be left on earth is a pile of overgrown ruins. If you want to reclaim the rock then fair enough, but that requires a moderate size security detail with each of the reclamation teams (just in case) rather than a full blown invasion fleet. If you're doing it for revenge then just take one of your interstellar troop carriers, load it up with the densest mass that can be practically sourced in that quantity, and set the autopilot to ram straight into Earth at the highest speed it can manage. Have it broadcast Psywar messages on all frequencies for a few hours/days before it hits if you want to get all dramatic about it.

user they were funding the Lockheed F-104 death trap at the time.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (564x699, 362.41K)

At least it looked cool.
Is that a down facing ejection seat?

Attached: Lockheed_XF-104_(modified).jpg (1836x1110, 1M)

Because nowadays the western world is too busy killing itself to progress in anything that isn't a way to kill whitey, Japan is hampered by American-forced constituation and a partly brainwashed population in anything that remotely pertains to the military, and the rest of the world can't into anything beyond 80s tech.
Except Russia, I guess, but they've had a couple too many bottles of mouthwash to be of much use.

But they could just create some token shabbos colonies to sustain their hunger, putting holocaust memorials on every solid planetary body in the solar system and beyond is an oppurtunity they shouldn't want to pass up.

Attached: I_can_jew_it.mp4 (640x480, 406.96K)

yes, they did it because the early ejection seat was too underpowered to clear the tail. among other things it ended up killing the canadian air force.

growing up in late 1960s and 70s, there were Hobby stores in every town selling model planes, ships, tanks, etc. Even tiny town of Conifer, CO pop about 8,000 had Hobby and Model store.

Now there is about 3 in all SF bay area, mostly on there last legs as some fool's pet project, and they didn't close because of Internet, they closed before that due to "demographics".

In their place is slut-ware stores for Mexican thots, and at best some "gamer" stores.

I hope they don’t make the same mistake just like we did.

They cannot survive without the host. If they did then they will last for short time then fade away.

Why did it have such a terrible safety record anyway?
wew

Attached: Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter_-_Wikipedia_-_2019-05-12_01.56.29.png (1294x604, 224.92K)

Stubby wings which meant a high stall speed, and high landing speed. Coupled with the engines being very easy to flame out in poor weather due to them being very early jets pushed to their absolute limit. The plane was supposed to be a fair weather interceptor. It did poorly in Canada because the engines would flame out on takeoff due to ice ingestion. This was compounded by the plane not having on board engine starters and the downwards ejector seat at first. To save weight, the engine was started by a special truck on the runway. So once you flamed out, you were done for.

Lockheeb later made some modifications like adding a proper zero-zero seat and onboard engine starters, but then marketed it as an all weather multirole plane. The Germans then proceeded to crash them over and over again doing retarded shit like gun runs and low altitude skip bombing in bad weather.

The proof is in the article you posted. Spain didn't lose a single plane, Italy loved it and flew them into both gulf wars. The reason being that those were warmer countries with mild weather along with them using the aircraft for their intended purpose of high altitude interception. Japan and Taiwan also loved the plane and only retired them at the turn of the millennia due to lack of spare parts and NASA still flies them for high altitude research and I believe also some experiment involving launching micro sats with missiles.

TLDR: The plane was first drafted as a fair weather interceptor and should have never been flown in poor weather and in the wrong role.

Attached: Brightidea.PNG (209x369, 41.59K)

That is a good quality post user.

That actually makes a lot of sense. I was wondering why there was such a disparity between the accident rate of Germany/Canada and that of Spain.
The eternal gremlin strikes again. It seems like it's a never ending struggle to try to come up with a single body design that's stable from subsonic all the way up through supersonic.

Attached: 25-1.jpg (1280x943 43.06 KB, 554.96K)

Yep, it was trash.

i-f-s.nl/f-104-accidents/

Strange that it also has many accidents in a warm country like Turkroachistan?

Maybe they are shit at driving the planes?

Not only in murka. It was a better era.

Being leering less of a coffin in warm weather did not make them less shit as a concept, especially when USAFs obsession with speed was useless since it could not even use BVR missiles.

Because a bunch of intelligent white men were given massive fucking budgets and told to go crazy. Now we either don't have enough cash or have too many shitskins for real R&D to occur. Way too much fucking nance redtape as well. It was an era of progress and an era of great waste. 90% of these projects went nowhere but we learned in the process and that's where technological gains were made. Can't take on shit like that hardly anymore because you'll get lynched by your (((investors))) when your fuckoff airplane fails to turn a profit.

Did the roaches fly it as a multirole plane? Or as an interceptor? I'm willing to bet on the former.

BVR wasn't even a concept when the aircraft was first drafted up. You needed speed to catch something when short range missiles were the peak of technology at the time. And later upgrade packages came with AIM-7 support which is BVR capable.

So it only became useful 3 decades after it came out while doing the same thing a MiG-21 did minus the dogfighting, the ability to not overshoot targets flying slower than 600 km/h, taking off and landing without the risk of breaking the landing gears if you went 10km/h faster than the minimum required or the capacity to eject the pilot without killing him.

So where are these 1950s BVR missiles and when did the AIM-7 appear in the late 80s?

How is this relevant? The designers made an extreme tradeoff of overall performance solely for speed and ended up with a plane that was not notably faster than conventional all-round performance designs that came couple of years later. If anything BVR missiles not existing or being widespread is an argument against F-104's existence.

When was the F-104 retrofitted with AIM-7 capacity? Because intuitively it does not seem much likely that it was Sparrow-capable before the F-16 was.

its literally impossible m8, that's why the manual specifies a 'flight envelope' which is all the speeds and attitudes you can fly at and not stall the wing.
All airframe designs trade off performance in one area to increase it in another. One good example is leading edge slats on many planes. They weigh more, and add lots of drag, but increase lift and decrease the minimum speed(and thus landing distance) a lot too. So you don't see leading edge slats on jets which gotta go fast, but you do see them on bush planes which need the short landing roll and don't care about the speed losses.
This same thinking applies to every single external detail of the plane; wing sweep, foil design, landing gear placement, hardpoints, normal tail vs t-tail vs v-tail, even seemingly irrelevant details like the exact hinge position and mechanisms of the flaps/ailerons have a huge effect on the planes overall aerodynamic performance.
To make things worse, the rules for what is 'aerodynamic' change as you get into transonic speeds, then again at supersonic, then again at mach 5, which is why the x-15 maxed out there, and why the space shuttle had a blunt nose.

tl;dr literally everything you see on a plane(even including the paint) comes with positives and negatives.

lol

You're a special brand of fucking retarded aren't you?

You should stop.

MiG-21 did the same and it did not need a timezone to make a 90^ turn, neither did it have to fly all the way back to the bomber's tail every time it failed to shoot down a bomber (which was inevitable with early AIM-9B variants and 20mm strafes) and that's completely ignoring all-aspect missiles would not be a thing for decades and that almost all strategic bombers had tail-guns . F-104 only redeeming value in what you are describing was its rate of climb which was greatly countered by its near inability to take off without rocket assistance.

pic related, probably much more efficient anti-bomber strategy

Why the fuck is it so hard for you to admit the F-104 was just typical lockheeb moneygrab and that the concept of a flying pencil with barely any wing and no turning capacity whatsoever was retarded for a Sidewinder/Vulcan armed platform?

Attached: 1200px-Convair_F-106A_Delta_Dart_1.jpg (1200x803, 89.34K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#Safety_record
ctrf+f: AIM-7
tl;dr:
out of all NATO countries that were forced the aluminum tube down their throat, only pastaniggers and turdroaches were assed to upgrade up to AIM-7 capable standards
Get bent, Moishe.

So what kind of magical missiles and guns did the Mig-21 have that allowed it to get kills on B-52s from all angles and every pass? Why are we assuming that the AIM-9 and 20mm vulcan are insufficient weapons for air to air when they are still in wide spread use? Are you trying to imply early side winders would be unable to hit a giant, slow moving TU-95 but a K-5 or a K-13, a literal reverse engineered AIM-9B down the the same max range, which was the longest reach the MiG got until the 70s would take down a B-52 in one pass?

Amazing, so you agree with what I said with it being a 60s thing and not a fucking 80s thing. You sure showed me.

The ability to put itself to desirable angles, stay behind them and actually evade tail-gun fire. With it's abysmal lift the F-104's not only could not make course corrections as easily as its contemporaries like MiG-21, Mirage III or even the fucking boat the F-4, but its stall speed was nearly as high as the Tu-95's cruising speed at such altitudes.

Never said they are, stupid, but they are short-range weapons and back then the AIM-9 wasn't all aspect and that makes it completely incomparable to its modern variants and firing protocol. You absolutely had to fire the AIM-9B at the foes' ass. And don't forget the reason the Russians had AA-2 in the first place was because of an early AIM-9 malfunction that allowed a chink MiG return to base with a perfectly reverse-engineerable nearly intact Sidewinder stuck on its ass.

The MiGs being unable to reliably shoot down B-52 while having copypasted AIM-9 doesn't work in favor of your non-argument.

Gee, I wonder why out of the 15 countries that had the F-104 only two, its original developer not included, were assed to slightly modernize it? Maybe because they were the only countries that had the near entirety of their combat aircraft fleet consisted by F-104s?

I'm assuming you're IP hopping, but the last post said that a Mig would not have to get behind a bomber unlike an F-104. This is clearly not the case as you said yourself that the missile tech of the day was incapable of doing such a thing. The most effective way to kill a bomber and not get hit in the process is also done by making a pass on it, not sitting behind it matching its speed so I don't understand why stall speed is important here. The quicker you fire your missiles and pass the tail's cone of fire, the less likely it is that the bomber will score hits on you with its tail gun. And again with the shortcomings of the AIM-9B. Literally all missiles of that era were like that as you said yourself again. Its not IDEAL, but its literally the best chance anyone had at stopping a bomber at the time that wasn't a NIKE Hercules.

Because it had short legs so it was mainly useful as an Interceptor for countries that bordered the East bloc once longer range aircraft came into production?

...

Would not have to get behind TWICE because of an overshoot because it's stall speed isn't 500km/h like the F-104.

You have a point there but that's something everything else could do it, still it's better to not go behind it TWICE because you could not approach from ideal position in the first place.

because cutting tight energy bleeding turns is vital for reaching fire position against someone's ass targeting 20mm lead farts at you

Your "twice" quote is pulled completely out of your ass. There is no reason you can't dump two missiles into the target to insure it drops on one pass. The higher the speed you approach a bomber, the more lead the tail gun will have to adjust for from the most minute corrections made by the attacking plane. Pulling a tight turn while still inside the bomber's cone of fire is a great way to massively increase the surface area of your plane and get filled with holes.

High speed is a meme when your plane is so much of a special needs piggu it can't do repeat diagonal slice attacks without passing through multiple time zones in the process.

What the kraut said. You NEVER engage into a gunfight against a rotating turret, if you try to take out a bomber with guns you don't do it from its six. The point is two fire your two primitive heat-seekers while staying barely outside the range of the tail gun, something gottagofastfags have an issue of doing.

I'm so happy that we're posed to go back to this era of space exploration. The Right Stuff is probably the movie I find most inspirational. Extremely excited for the new moon/mars missions NASA has planned.

What if kikes remake The Right Stuff for the current year audience?

Isn't that basically what they did with about that movie with the strong black wimminz?

They'd probably also portray Alan Shepherd as a gay twink too or something

they didn't go as far as having them pilot the rocket though.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (220x391, 108.4K)