P-51 question.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Peter Stickney
writes
That being said, even when you strip the myth off it, the Arrow was an
amazing project. There are only 3 countries which have built and
flown Supersonic Heavy Interceptors. The U.S., the Soviet Union, and
Canada. That's danged good.

What about the Tornado F.3?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

And the English Electric Lightnings?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

In message , Andrew Chaplin
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
What about the Tornado F.3?

And the English Electric Lightnings?

I was thinking of interceptors that had a loiter capability and long
patrol range, as well as climb rate and dash speed.

France gets included with the Mirage if "take off, get to altitude,
shoot at something, go home" is the mission profile

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:30:51 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
wrote:




And the English Electric Lightnings?

Excellent for intercepting something bombing the airfield perimeter.


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

"Ed Majden" wrote in message .ca...
"Kevin Brooks"
Bombardiers own website:

"The Arlington, Virginia-based airline (US Air), seventh-largest in
the U.S., placed a firm order for sixty 50-seat CRJ200 and twenty-five
75-seat dual class CRJ700 Series 705 jets. The transaction also
includes rights for 90 re-confirmable orders plus 100 options. US
Airways could acquire up to 275 Bombardier CRJ aircraft under terms of
the contract, announced May 12, 2003."

Who sold us the following: 707, 747, 757, 737, 727, DC-9, DC-8, L1011, and
others that I can't think of the numbers right now. Bombardier jets are
popular with the airlines now because they can't fill the seats of the big
body jets like the 747, 767, etc. Civilian airlines are there to make
"money" and they shop for the most practical and least expensive product.
The country that makes them is irrelevant. They are out to make a buck for
their share holders. If they don't do that it's curtains for them! A lot
of the US Airlines were given loan guarantees by our Government so they
would buy Canadian. They even got censored for that by the WTO. All
countries do this just as your government subsidizes you agricultural
industry. Free Trade my ASS!

Snipping away the parts you don't like does not make them go away. And
you are as full of fecal matter as the proverbial Christmas turkey in
regards to this subject--over the past ten years, for example, the
volume and cost of aircraft such as the DASH 8 and CRJ purchased from
Canada probably far outstrips both values for Boeing products heading
northwards (you forgot that Airbus also supplies canadian airlines,
not to mention those Airbus transports operated by the RCAF?).

Brooks

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
Paul J. Adam wrote:
Peter Stickney wrote:

There are only 3 countries which have built and
flown Supersonic Heavy Interceptors. The U.S.,
the Soviet Union, and Canada. That's danged good.

What about the Tornado F.3?

And the English Electric Lightnings?

I could be wrong, but it appears to me that Peter was referring to
the YF-12A, MiG-25, and Canada's White Elephant (Arrow).

-Mike Marron

Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:30:51 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
wrote:




And the English Electric Lightnings?

Excellent for intercepting something bombing the airfield perimeter.

Ah, but Peter Stickney's description was "Supersonic Heavy
Interceptors" -- no mention of range. ;^) But your point is taken.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

wrote:

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
Paul J. Adam wrote:
Peter Stickney wrote:

There are only 3 countries which have built and
flown Supersonic Heavy Interceptors. The U.S.,
the Soviet Union, and Canada. That's danged good.

What about the Tornado F.3?

And the English Electric Lightnings?

I could be wrong, but it appears to me that Peter was referring to
the YF-12A, MiG-25, and Canada's White Elephant (Arrow).

Probably. However, I suspect that the EE programme was nearly as
challenging as Avro Canada's.

For those interested in Arrow-analia, one of the surviving pieces of
the Arrow programme is a cutaway of the Velvet Glove missile which,
when I last checked, was in use as a training aid at the School of
Artillery.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" writes:
In message , Peter Stickney
writes
That being said, even when you strip the myth off it, the Arrow was an
amazing project. There are only 3 countries which have built and
flown Supersonic Heavy Interceptors. The U.S., the Soviet Union, and
Canada. That's danged good.

What about the Tornado F.3?

A bit short-legged, and, well, I'd say tht an Interceptor shouldn't
have to go into reheat to keep up with a Tu-95.

A dashed good missile platform, though.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
Andrew Chaplin writes:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Peter Stickney
writes
That being said, even when you strip the myth off it, the Arrow was an
amazing project. There are only 3 countries which have built and
flown Supersonic Heavy Interceptors. The U.S., the Soviet Union, and
Canada. That's danged good.

What about the Tornado F.3?

And the English Electric Lightnings?

Heavy interceptor implies long range area intercept, rather than Point
Defence. Lightnings are very exciting, but a reheat takeoff is a
double emoergeny declaration - Low Fuel, and a Fire on Board. (Well,
in the reheat burner, anyway, usually). The Lightning was a great
performer, but it was really limited to a profile of "CLimb straight
up tp 50,000', shoot the missiles, and glide home."

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
Andrew Chaplin writes:
Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:30:51 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
wrote:
And the English Electric Lightnings?

Excellent for intercepting something bombing the airfield perimeter.

Ah, but Peter Stickney's description was "Supersonic Heavy
Interceptors" -- no mention of range. ;^) But your point is taken.

True, I should have been more explicit. A Heavy Interceptor is
something lang-ranged and reliable enough that nobody would be nervous
about sending them up over the Tundra, or the Artic Ocean. Candiadtes
in that category would be the Tu-128, MiG-25, F-101, F-106, F-4, the
CF-105, the YF-12, and the didn't get built F-108. I;m actually a bit
leery about the YF-12. Blackbirds don't take well to sitting on an
alert pad, waiting to scramble. It takes a lot of time & effort to
prep one for a flight.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster