Ta152-H1 uber-fighter?

[Nonskimmer]

Yeah, nice!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah I like the font. I need to get an old english font. Does anyone know any websites where you can get them and other fonts?

Originally Posted by plan_D

Weight of the missile means nothing, weight of the warhead does. The Red Top had a range of 7 miles. It wasn't until the 80s AIM-9Ls that they became superior to the Red Top missile.

The Firestreak doesn't need to be mentioned because it was soon replaced by the Red Top, as there were many faults with the Firestreak. Although they can be forgiven, being a 50s design.

Weight and size are always a factor.

Your figures for Sidewinder range are wrong. Ranges are listed below:

AIM-9B: 4.8 km (3 miles)
AIM-9E: 4.2 km (2.6 miles)
AIM-9D/G/H/J/L/M/N: 18 km (11 miles)
AIM-9X: 40+ km (25+ miles)

The AIM-9B came out in the early 50's, the AIM-9D came out in the late 50's. The Red Hat qualified in 1964 but was not fielded until 1967. The AIM-9G qualified in 1963 but was not fielded until 1968. The AIM-9G was not signficantly used until late 1969 or so, because it required targeting systems mods to the planes to use them effectively. The same issue existed for the Red Hat, but since it was never actually used we don't have a figure for how long this may have taken.

So the range argument you've been presenting is bogus. The late 50's AIM-9D had greater range than the Red Hat. And the proper comparisons are between the Firestreak and the AIM-9D, or between the Red Hat and the AIM-9G, since those are contemporary missiles.

When comparing the Red Hat to the AIM-9G, well, they have different primary intents. The Red Hat is an all-aspect IR missile intended for bomber interception. It could be fired at a target at any angle but it's minimum launch range was 1.2 km, a maximum range of 11 km, and its ability to lock highly manuverable targets, especially near the ground, was limited by the planes optical scanning targeting system.

The AIM-9G was a high-aspect IR missile that could use either an optical scanning targeting system to achieve a lock or the scanning system could be slaved to the pilots helmet allowing a much improved lock capability against hard manuvering opponents, especially near the ground. It had to be behind the target to aquire a lock. The AIM-9G had no minimum range (other than "behind the target") and a maximum range of 18 km. It was intended to intercept fast moving/manuvering fighters.

The AIM-9L "all-aspect" Sidewinder was introduced in 1976, not "the 80's". The L's first use was in the early 80's by British Harriers in the Faulkin's war. H and J models were in use as early as 1972 in Vietnam.

=S=

Lunatic

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Sidewinder was and is the best short range missle. Atleast the newer models are.

[plan_D]

I said nothing about the Sidewinder ranges.

The late 70s and on are the best short range air-to-air missiles.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Oh I agree I was not saying that you did, I was just making a statement. I think this whole discussion on a missle from the 90's being better than a missle form the 60's is stupid anyhow. You can not compare them ofcourse the missle from the 90's is better. Anyway he will argue to argue so dont worry.

[Lightning Guy]

By the mid-90s the Sidewinder had been surpassed. The Israeli Python, European ASRAAM, and Russian AA-11 Archer where all far supperior to the AIM-9M. However, the newest version, AIM-9X, has restored the dominance of the Sidewinder family.

Originally Posted by plan_D

I said nothing about the Sidewinder ranges.

The late 70s and on are the best short range air-to-air missiles.

Hmmm....

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Red Top was hard to shake, but only had a 7 mile range. Then, it is a short range missile, the sparrow was medium. The AIM-9 is short range and before the L, I believe inferior to the Red Top.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/vie...?p=47609#47609

I'd assumed in this you meant the range of the Sidewinder was inferior to that of the Red Top. If you meant generally inferior, that is very debateable.

The Red Top was all-aspect, so it could be fired at the front of the target. The AIM-9G was high aspect, it could be fired at significant angles off the rear of the target, but it had much faster target locking and was better suited to use against fast moving manuvering targets. By this point, the purposes had diverged, the Sidewinder being more for fighter and attack plane interception, the Red Top being more for bomber interception.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Oh I agree I was not saying that you did, I was just making a statement. I think this whole discussion on a missle from the 90's being better than a missle form the 60's is stupid anyhow. You can not compare them ofcourse the missle from the 90's is better. Anyway he will argue to argue so dont worry.

Who's talking about missles from the 90's? I've been talking about missiles from the 60's. AIM-9B - early/mid 50's. AIM-9D & Firestreak - late 50's. AIM-9G & Red Top - mid-late 60's. AIM-9H - early 70's.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

The Red Top was capable of locking on an enemy fighter, without the Lightning even facing the enemy plane. Plus, as you said, it could fire anywhere on the enemy plane. The Firestreak had to be fired from behind the enemy.

The only reason the Red Top is known as being made for bringing down bombers is because the Lightning was only intercepting bombers. The Red Top could have done the job over fighters too.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Red Top was capable of locking on an enemy fighter, without the Lightning even facing the enemy plane. Plus, as you said, it could fire anywhere on the enemy plane. The Firestreak had to be fired from behind the enemy.

The only reason the Red Top is known as being made for bringing down bombers is because the Lightning was only intercepting bombers. The Red Top could have done the job over fighters too.

Read about IR scanning systems of the time. For a missile to be launched first the planes IR scanner had to aquire a lock. This took time, especially if the target was engaging in evasives and could not be held in the center of the sensor easily. The scanning system is typically referred to as a "rosetta pattern" scan, with the scanner passing through the center far more often than the edges. As far as I know, the scanner on the Lightning was forward looking only, and there was no pilot-helmet scanner. Do you have info to the contrary?

=S=

Lunatic

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Who's talking about missles from the 90's? I've been talking about missiles from the 60's. AIM-9B - early/mid 50's. AIM-9D & Firestreak - late 50's. AIM-9G & Red Top - mid-late 60's. AIM-9H - early 70's.

=S=

Lunatic

I was making a general statement, sorry that you read to much into it. You can not compare missles of different types to each other. A short range and a medium range how can you compare them. I understand comparing the AIM 9 to other short range missles which you have done on several occasions but otherwise it has been how the Sparrow is superior to short range missles of the 50's. Do you understand my general statement now, if not oh well I dont care.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

bit late but nice siggy der alder................

[Medvedya]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yeah I like the font. I need to get an old english font. Does anyone know any websites where you can get them and other fonts?

There is a font called 'Fraktur' which was used on all the official leaflets and letterheads of the Third Reich.

Okay, this came from this site linked here;

http://www.waldenfont.com/default.asp

At the end of the 15th century most Latin books in Germany were printed in a dark, barely legible gothic type style known as Textura. What little was printed in German used the rougher and more base Schwabacher type. When the German emperor Maximilian (reigned 1493-1517) decided to establish a splendid library of printed books, he directed that a new typeface be created especially for this purpose. This typeface was to be more elegant than the boorish Schwabacher, more modern than the gothic Textura and yet distinctly “German” in that it should not incorporate elements of the Antiqua style typefaces that the humanist movement had just created in Italy based on ancient roman lettering, and which had become the rage of printing fashion south of the Alps. Based on the Bastarda handwriting used by the scribes of the Emperor’s chancery, the calligrapher Leonhard Wagner designed this new typeface, which soon became known as Fraktur (say frac-toor) for the broken character of its lines. Only four of Maximilian's 130 planned editions were completed in his lifetime, but those four had been sent for illustration to the foremost German renaissance artists, Dürer, Cranach and Grün. The artists used the new typeface in their works and thus gave it a wide distribution. Albrecht Dürer’s “Unterweysung” is still one of the most famous books printed in Fraktur.
When the reformation movement swept across Germany, a flood of printed propaganda came with it. Much of this material used the new Fraktur and helped to make the new type popular far and wide. It allowed for an easy distinction of catholic and protestant publications: The protestants printed German, using Fraktur, the Catholics printed Latin, using Antiqua types similar to the one used here. One edition of the Bible even had each verse start with a Fraktur letter when the topic was salvation or other positive events, but Antiqua when it was satan, hell, and eternal damnation. It was this separation that caused Fraktur to be known as the “German” and Antiqua as the “Latin” font. For the next five centuries, the Germans managed to hold on to the ancient Fraktur, swaying between unanimous support of it and cursing the “anachronistic monk’s scribbling” depending on the current level of national sentiment. Most works intended for a general audience continued to be printed this way well into the 20th century, while books of a more scientific nature used the “learned” Latin type. In the meantime, most other European countries adopted Antiqua, and still use it to this day. After World War I Fraktur finally began to go out of style as German society became more cosmopolitan and open to international influences. This ended, of course, with the rise of the Third Reich and the ensuing glorification of everything German. Many pseudo-Fraktur and Gothic types were created then, most displaying the harsh spirit of the “New Germany” and all of them incredibly ugly. It is ironic to learn that it was Hitler himself who finally terminated Fraktur printing. During the course of the war, the German type had proved to be a communications barrier with the peoples of occupied Europe, and so in January of 1941, Fraktur was officially abolished by declaring it to be “Un-German” and “of Jewish origin”. The order directed all newspapers and publishing houses to switch to Antiqua at the earliest practicable date. Due to the economic difficulties caused by the war, this date never really came, and relatively few publications had actually switched by the end of the war in 1945. The occupying allied forces naturally imposed a censorship on printed materials and further encouraged the use of Antiqua typefaces for reasons of legibility. In the following years, German printers and type designers looked for new directions that were not reminiscent of Germany’s militarist past, and eventually developed a style similar to the Bauhaus designs of the 1920’s. During the next forty years, Fraktur became closely and solely associated with the Third Reich. All Fraktur printing was treated with suspicion. Today, printers and type designers are carefully pulling these treasures back into the light and hope that they will once again be freed of political sentiments.

Now, it's a nice font, but not so nice that you'll want to pay for it! Fear not - here's a selection of 'true type' downloads;

http://www.morscher.com/3r/fonts/fraktur.htm

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Cool thanks for the websites and the history will check it out.