# Are the Harrier and Jaguar "beautiful"?



## MarkOttawa (5 Jul 2010)

British art gallery exhibit:

The terrible beauty of machines built to kill
Charles Moore reviews Harrier and Jaguar at the Tate Britain and is not at all surprised to find beauty in the corpses of two jet fighters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/7871762/The-terrible-beauty-of-machines-built-to-kill.html



> The Sepecat Jaguar lying belly up in the Tate Britain  Photo: David Rose...


  

Harrier:






If you think about, the looks of the Harrier and Jaguar actually have quite a bit in common (role, speed...).  Really beautiful military aircraft from that era (60s)?  Can`t think of many:






Maybe:






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## wannabe SF member (5 Jul 2010)

While there is no doubting the Harrier's illustrious history and effectiveness,  I just can't bring myself to find it pretty. 
It looks like the Phantom's uglier cousin.


----------



## DexOlesa (5 Jul 2010)

Maybe not so much the Harrier, but I've always been a fan of the Jaguar.


----------



## Danjanou (5 Jul 2010)

I always thought the F-106 Delta Dart was nice looking very crisp lines


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jul 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I always thought the F-106 Delta Dart was nice looking very crisp lines


Much nicer than the _completely different_ F-102 Delta Dagger.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jul 2010)

But the Convairs are 1950s, earlier era than Harrier et al.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jul 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But the Convairs are 1950s, earlier era than Harrier et al.


No argument. I was merely furthering _Danjanou_'s lawn-dart theory of aviation  ;D

If you're talking beautiful aircraft design......


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jul 2010)

I don't think the Harrier is supposed to be beautiful any more than the A10 is (?)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think planes being beautiful really took a long lunchbreak between WW2 and stealth designs like the SR71 and B2.

Due to the graceful shape I think the Spitfire will likely be seen as the most beautiful combat aircraft ever made, and for the next few decades after that it was just a collection of air-intake-pig-faces or missiles like the pics above.


----------



## dangerboy (5 Jul 2010)

Any aircraft that shows up to provide air support is a beautiful sight.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jul 2010)

best looking airplane in the sky....hands down


----------



## observor 69 (5 Jul 2010)

Another nice one:


----------



## TheHead (5 Jul 2010)

Hands down the most beautiful thing to see circling over-top you.  Well if it's on yourside


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jul 2010)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Hands down the most beautiful thing to see circling over-top you.  Well if it's on yourside



If its not on your side, you don't see it or hear it until its too late.  >


----------



## cameron (5 Jul 2010)

I've always considered the Harrier and Jaguar to be two of the most beautiful aircraft ever made. [mountie]


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Jul 2010)

TheHead said:
			
		

>




I know a few guys who cringe when they hear or see them. I might owe my life to them but I still look skyward and have a hard time trusting the guys who fly them....


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2010)

Thptptpt.....

The wings don't turn on a single one of them. It's just not natural.


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Jul 2010)

Loach

Yeah I have to admit nothing better then the sound of air and gravity being beaten into submission. That sounds hearlds the end of a long job....


----------



## larry Strong (5 Jul 2010)

The plane I find the "easiest on the eyes" from that period would be the "Hawker Hunter".

"The total number of Hunters produced was just less than 2000 between 1951 and the early 1960's. It was an aircraft
which enjoyed long service in 21 nations, from the Omani deserts, to the jungles of Malaya, to the high Andean 
plateaus of the Atacama in Chile and the icy Swedish winters of Northern Europe. Wars in Pakistan and India have truly 
bloodied her history, as have her flights over Somalia and Zimbabwe and surrounding African Nations."


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Jul 2010)

This has to be the sexiest bitch on Earth.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jul 2010)

I like the classic look:


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jul 2010)

I always thought this design was beautiful.  I bought a model kit for it in around 1992 (?) I think.







Certainly more graceful looking than the F117.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I always thought this design was beautiful.  I bought a model kit for it in around 1992 (?) I think.



As far as government fabricated disinformation campaigns come, its takes the prize, i agree.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jul 2010)

And that design made it into Red Storm Rising, the so-called "frisbee".  It also made it into the Game Designer's Workshop game of "The Third World War: Battle for Germany".  And it's first battle, Panama, was almost what, ten years after first entering service?


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jul 2010)

I think it was first invented by game designer Micro Prose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-19_Stealth_Fighter

And then the model kit followed it.  I was 11 in 1988 and remember thinking it was awesome.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jul 2010)

This ain't bad, great name:

YF-23 Black Widow II
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/yf23.html



> ...A popular view is that the decision reflected a preference for maneuverability over stealth, and it is universally held that the YF-23 was by far the better looking aircraft...








Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jul 2010)

Mark,

I think that's a bold statement of the author to use the word "universal" without interviewing everyone in the universe.  I think that plane looks nowhere near as nice as the F22, mostly because the wings are too symmetrical so it doesn't look like it's going anywhere or cutting through the air.


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I always thought this design was beautiful.  I bought a model kit for it in around 1992 (?) I think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny you should mention that design...reminds me of a 1986 edition of Popular science I have that predicted the upcoming stealth designs. The writers were on the right track with their design of a "flying wing" (B-2) but didn't quite get the fighter right...the example showed an F-19.

And ahh yes...the frisbee from RSR! Good book.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jul 2010)

The Germans were experimenting with a flying wing design:


----------



## DonaldMcL (5 Jul 2010)

*cough* Ahem *cough*


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jul 2010)

If we are going to insist on talking about fighter-type aircraft, who can forget the RA-5C Vigilante :


----------



## danchapps (5 Jul 2010)

How about the CF 100?


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jul 2010)

CDN Aviator: I almost put up the Vigilante (another good, non-pc name) to oppose to the Harrier and Jaguar--but it's 50s vintage.

And there was the A3J before the "R" (which saw most service):
http://www.vectorsite.net/ava5.html



> The rapid evolution of aircraft design in the 1950s led to new aircraft types with *sleek lines* [emphasis added] and impressive performance. One such aircraft was the North American A-5/RA-5 "Vigilante". The Vigilante was designed as a carrier-based strategic nuclear bomber, but would see action over Vietnam as a fast reconnaissance aircraft...



The Vigilante was designed to replace the Douglas A3D Skywarrior (AKA "Whale"), the USN's first all-jet nuclear bomber,
http://www.a3skywarrior.com/whaletales/finalwake.html

which itself replaced the North American AJ Savage (those names again):
http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/na_savage.php

Two radials and a jet.  Talk about a rapid evolution indeed (since much slowed) of aircraft to perform the same role, with NA in at start and finish.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2010)

The _Vulcan_, which entered service in the '50s, I think, as a strike bomber, served into the '80s - dropping iron bombs on sundry enemies of the British crown every now and again:


----------



## Danjanou (6 Jul 2010)

Guys I think we forgot one stunning local beauty


----------



## DexOlesa (6 Jul 2010)

We didn't forget. That things just ugly  :   ;D Of course I joke


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jul 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Vulcan_, which entered service in the '50s, I think, as a strike bomber, served into the '80s - dropping iron bombs on sundry enemies of the British crown every now and again:


Ah, yes, the Vulcan.  I recall seeing one when I was a wee-lad.  I was in Belleville, and it was en route to Trenton, probably for an airshow.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Jul 2010)

Some may interested in this forum: http://www.pprune.org/

Professional Pilots Rumour Network


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jul 2010)

My 2c worth: Arrow hands down ...

Though I would also have to agree with CDN Aviator: An Orion showing up over my convoy always made me warm a fuzzy like 20 Hornets and Tomcats running CAP could not - Surely that makes it just a beautiful sight.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jul 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Though I would also have to agree with CDN Aviator: An Orion showing up over my convoy always made me warm a fuzzy like 20 Hornets and Tomcats running CAP could not - Surely that makes it just a beautiful sight.



We aim to please......on station, on time, every time.


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The Germans were experimenting with a flying wing design:



That was no experiment, they got stable non-computer-assisted flight at 1,000 km/h at almost 50,000 ft.


----------



## WLSC (6 Jul 2010)

What about this one ?


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jul 2010)

FusMR: A lot prettier than this McDonnell:
http://www.midwaysailor.com/photos/phantom-f4h1f.html






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jul 2010)

FusMR said:
			
		

> What about this one ?



That's my baby. Wrong Sqn though 

This is better


----------



## WLSC (6 Jul 2010)

> That's my baby. Wrong Sqn though



Sorry about that    I have to admit that even if I dont realy know if it was a good plane, she's got a da... good look.


----------



## WLSC (6 Jul 2010)

> MarkOttawa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## danchapps (7 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's my baby. Wrong Sqn though
> 
> This is better



My previous boss informed me that his father was the brain behind the Hawk One paint job on the Voodoo. Somewhere I have a picture of the last formation flight of the Voodoo's over North Bay. I miss the sound of them playing games over the city (to be a kid again!)


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jul 2010)

FusMR: First Voodoo, pretty:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2332






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 57Chevy (7 Jul 2010)

They are all quite nice looking, as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
I think this is also a beauty: video


----------



## WLSC (7 Jul 2010)

Posté par: MarkOttawa
« le: Aujourd'hui à 06:09:50 »


> FusMR: First Voodoo, pretty:



Ouin...  A good exemple of what evolution can do, in a good way.


----------



## Foxhound (7 Jul 2010)

My personal fave for fast, deadly and beautiful.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/freefight-eng.asp





The blurb that goes with this photo:


> The CF-5 shows its classic jet fighter profile, which also goes to show why modern jet fighters have earned the nickname "Lawndarts". Their appearance does call to mind the basic shape of a lawn dart due to their generally long, pointed noses, narrow bodies and large wing and tail surfaces.



Loved having these fly over, rattling the windows when I was a kid in Cold Lake.

You may also recognize it as the bad guy in the movie "Top Gun".




Without the CDN markings, of course.


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Jul 2010)

Found this looking for something else, but this is beautiful for the surviving crew:






"Lawrence M. Delancey, 0-41351, Army Air Forces, United States Army, for gallantry in action while serving as a pilot of a B-17 bomber on a mission over Germany  15 October 1944.  Immediately after bombs away Lt. Delancey's aircraft was hit by flak.  A shell pierced the chin turret and exploded in the nose, killing the bombardier and destroying practically all the instruments.  The entire nose section was shorn off and all that remained was a tangled mass of instruments, wires and sheet metal.  With the oxygen equipment ruined and a sub-zero gale rushing through the plane, Lt. Delancey descended to a lower altitude and headed out of enemy territory.  Flying at reduced speed and unable to take proper protective measures with his off-balanced plane, he was subjected to every conceivable type of ground fire.   By sheer determination and tenacity he managed to bring the battered aircraft over the home base.  Without proper brakes Lt. Delancey climaxed this miraculous feat of flying skill and ability by accomplishing a safe landing.  His actions under conditions which would have caused a less courageous pilot to abandon his aircraft are in keeping with the finest traditions of the Army Air Forces.  Entered the military service from Oregon.

By Command of Lieutenant General DOOLITTLE"


----------



## Tank Troll (8 Jul 2010)

My personal Favorite is the Voodoo. Growing up in Northern NB and watching 416 Sqn exercise against Loring AFB fighters was awesome. Always wanted to fly one. (damn colour vision 3)


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jul 2010)

Do you want to see and hear beautiful?

http://www.flyingmachinestv.co.uk/SpitPL965.wmv

The only flying Spitfire Mk. 11 is the email caption but a website reports it is a Mk XI, which was photo recce (larger fuel tank and deeper chin)

The Merlin engine: Spit, Lanc, Mosquito, etc.  Made the P-51 the airplane it was.

If you are ever in England, going to Duxford is a must.

http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/


----------



## DexOlesa (8 Jul 2010)

XI = 11


----------



## WLSC (8 Jul 2010)

Hummm !! They do show some familly link, no !


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2010)

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> XI = 11



Alright.  Get down and give us XX.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jul 2010)

LXIX?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## DexOlesa (8 Jul 2010)

69. I can play this game ALL day. (also I did your 20 pushups George. Never let it be said I'm a poor sport ;D )


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2010)

When I was first learning "From the Right, Number!"

I,II,III,IV,V,VI VII.......................

It never quite leaves you ;D


----------



## DexOlesa (8 Jul 2010)

That and the Phonetic Alphabet are burned into my brain.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jul 2010)

> The only flying Spitfire Mk. 11 is the email caption but a website reports it is a Mk XI



DexOlesa: I typed it incorrectly. S/B MK II vice Mk 11, meaning a Mark Two. Thanks for picked that error up. I believe it is a Mark XI, meaning a Mark Eleven.

Regardless. nice picture/sound for those who can appreciate beauty from long ago.


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Jul 2010)

Mark IX Spitfire is from what I have seen is generally regarded the "best".

Had the big cannons and 4-bladed prop for the bigger engine, but it didn't yet have the stretched body that ruined the aesthetic proportions.

On a different note, I have always wondered why if 4 = IV, why do you always see it as IIII on clocks?


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Jul 2010)

Johnnie Johnson flew the Mk IX Markings: JE  J 

Commanding Canadians as did Douglas Bader (242 Sqn Hurricanes)


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> On a different note, I have always wondered why if 4 = IV, why do you always see it as IIII on clocks?


From Wikipedia, several possibilities:


> Clock faces that are labeled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for four o'clock and IX for nine o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not the other. There are many suggested explanations for this, several of which may be true:
> 
> Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.
> Using the standard numerals, two sets of figures would be similar and therefore confusable by children and others unused to reading clockfaces: IV and the VI; and IX and XI. Since the first pair are additionally upside down on the face, an added level of confusion would be introduced. It is used to make greater character distinction between them by using IIII and VI
> ...


And


> The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent four, because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for nine, but IIII for four. Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IX and IV. A third document in the same manuscript uses IX and a mix of IIII and IV. Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number 19 was undeviginti or "one from twenty". The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.


----------



## time expired (24 Jul 2010)

Must have been really tough when the Centurion screamed PLATOON ,FROM THE RIGHT NUMBER.

                                                                           Regards


----------



## time expired (24 Jul 2010)

RECCEGUY,sorry I missed your post,kinda steals my thunder.

                                                                      Regards


----------

