![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:25 • Filed to: planelopnik, f-5 | ![]() | ![]() |
And pictures of its offspring. The F-5 certainly did have some successful derivatives, along with a few strange ones. I'm looking at you Iran and your funky unlicensed copies and derivations of the F-5.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:29 |
|
Ok.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:32 |
|
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:33 |
|
If you're wanting F-5 pics, why ar you mixing F/A-18's in there too? They're both awesome, don't get me wrong, I'm just a tad confused.
The X-29 has always been my favorite F-5 derivative.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:36 |
|
Only a small sampling of my collection.....
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:36 |
|
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:40 |
|
The F/A-18 was a Navy development of the YF-17 which lost the Air Forces LWF competition . The YF-17 program used major bits of the F-5 airframe, so the F/A-18 is indeed a direct descendant of the F-5.
My personal favorite, and possibly my favorite jet fighter of all time is the F-20 Tigershark. The proportions and lines are just classic.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:41 |
|
Those are some good ones.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:41 |
|
Came here to post this. My favorite as well. Probably my favorite X plane and that includes the X-1, X-15, X-51. Forward canards, forward swept wings, supersonic, tons of directional stiffness composites, multiple fly-by-wire systems (digital AND analog). This thing was a serious feat of engineering. They even considered thrust vectoring on it which would have given it up to or possibly more than 80 degrees angle of attack with stable flight.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:42 |
|
I actually did not know this. Fascinating, thank you for letting me know!
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:43 |
|
High AOA awesomeness.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:43 |
|
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:44 |
|
Side note: She's so damn pretty.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:45 |
|
You're welcome. It is surprising how many different planes the F-5 played a big part in. Even though the F-5 itself wasn't super successful it directly lead to the T-38 and the F/A-18, possibly the most successful supersonic trainer and Navy fighter/attack aircraft ever.
The "F-18" in NASA/Navy livery is actually the YF-17.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:46 |
|
Yes she is.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:47 |
|
Beat me to the T-38. I got trounced by CKeffer on the X-29.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:47 |
|
When I was in the Navy I was stationed on a base in Spain that was primarily a Spanish Air Force base and at the time they flew F5s. I saw a lot of those things flying around and always thought the US should have made better use of them.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:47 |
|
Yup, and all this back in the mid 80's when computing was still fairly primitive. Not nearly as much so as 10-20 years prior, mind you, but still vastly so compared to where we are now. It took some serious balls to step into the cockpit of that thing (or any other x-plane for that matter), and say, yeah I can keep this thing in the air!
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:51 |
|
From everything I've ever read about them they were sweet flying and capable little planes. It is a shame that they never saw much use in the U.S. inventory. I really wish the F-20 would have been successful. That is one of my favorite airplanes and by all accounts it was also a very good airplane that would have had low operational costs to go with it.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 16:53 |
|
Living in Houston, I'm very well aware of the T-38's relation to the F-5, since I see them all the time, and the visual like is incredibly clear. And I figured the other one was a development or test model since there are a few differences between it and the production F/A-18's.
09/30/2014 at 16:55 |
|
Mmmm, F-5 Aggressor schemes....
![]() 09/30/2014 at 17:04 |
|
I've got a bunch more. I've been collecting airplane, car and space pictures for years. My wallpapers/screensaver folder has almost 3000 images in it now. Here are a few more (if Kinja stops being a pain in the ass):
![]() 09/30/2014 at 17:16 |
|
Beat me to it
![]() 09/30/2014 at 19:10 |
|
No F-5 thread would be complete without mention of the CF-5 Freedom Fighter.
Made under license by Canadair with some home-baked mods, including shorter take-off, GE turbofans built under lic. by Orenda. As a plane designed with the budget export customer in mind, the CF-5 was a bit of a downgrade, but proved useful as primary jet trainers and in the aggressor training role. In theory they could also be used for light ground-attack and recon.
Many Canadair-built CF-5's were later exported to other countries looking for a cheap, light, fast and capable twin-engine jet fighter, the Netherlands and Venezuela among them.
Some are still in first-line service today. Canada gave a handful of free CF-5s to the African nation of Botswana along with some training and parts.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 20:39 |
|
Unaware the Iranian Blue Angels flew the F-5.
![]() 09/30/2014 at 20:55 |
|
I didn't know that either. Now I do!
![]() 09/30/2014 at 22:57 |
|
That one screwed with my head. At first glance I totally thought it was the Blue Angels livery. Then I noticed it said air force, then I realized it looked like a bad knockoff of an F-18 and finally I read the caption and found out it was an Iranian derivative of the F-5.
![]() 10/01/2014 at 00:25 |
|
I found another one for you, courtesy of the USAF.
A T-38 Talon flies in formation with the B-2 Spirit of South Carolina during a training mission over Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., Feb. 20, 2014.
http://www.af.mil/News/Photos.as…
![]() 10/07/2014 at 15:25 |
|
How did I miss this when it was originally posted!?!?
Some NASA T-38s training
And some playing
The not so new revised T-38N intake and why it was done
http://www.techbriefs.com/componen/conte…
Some Norwegians at a Tiger Meet
How about a MiG-28?
And of course,the ugly duckling
![]() 10/07/2014 at 16:36 |
|
That DARPA sonic boom testbed is just too goofy looking. I think it worked, but who would willingly fly in something so goofy.
/Really hope you don't work for NASA/DARPA on their sonic boom reduction programs. I would be embarrassed for a minute or two if I found out this was your design.
![]() 10/07/2014 at 16:48 |
|
LOL I wish I could take credit for it but sadly no, so have no fear, I too think that it looks a bit odd. NASA has a way of coming up with "interesting" sonic boom mitigation methods.