10 投票數 (4.50 平均) 和 2,310 浏览  

Grumman EF-111 Raven (63-9766)
/images/icons/csMagGlass.png 中等 / 大图 / 全尺寸

Grumman EF-111 Raven (63-9766)

提交时间:

Comments

Please log in or register to post a comment.

a mentor
sorry, the EF-111 Raven looks like this
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=277

you have the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark
Greg Byington
Sorry, a mentor, but F111 is the correct ICAO code for all variants of the F-111 Aardvark. That is what Habujet entered. After that, he (or she?) has no control over what FA displays as the aircraft type. It's a known issue with FA and gets many complaints here all the time. We all know the system often displays a misleading name for an aircraft type even if the correct ICAO code is entered. For example, the ICAO code for a LOCKHEED C-121A CONSTELLATION (military designation) is: CONI. But when you use that code FA always enters: Lockheed EC-121 Constellation whether it is an "E" version, or not. (Similar to the EF-111 here.) For that matter, FA enters EC-121 even if it is a civilian version of a Coni, i.e. Lockheed L-049/L-649/L-749/C-69 Constellation. In any case, unless the submitter of the photo entered the wrong ICAO code there is no use giving them a hard time about it.
w9jbl
This photo is a copyrighted photo of an F-111A, taken from airhistory.net https://www.airhistory.net/photo/282435/63-9766/39766.
a mentor
OUCH! FA is getting a carless as congress in getting the facts straight.

The EF-111A Raven is an ECM aircraft with a pod on the vertical stablizer while the F111 Ardvark is a swept wing bomber. see https://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f111_aardvark.htm

Misleading data destroys all credibility in using FA as a research/documentation tool.

Yes I know it's not the O.P.'s fault -- I disgruntled with explanations such as you (@Gregg) offer above.
Greg Byington
Yeah, I'm not sure how you could be disgruntled with my explanation before I gave it. I thought you might not be aware of the issue. Most of us realize this is not an EF-111. So, if you understood that it wasn't Hubujet's fault, then disregard my previous comment.

The other issue is that if this isn't your photo, Habujet, then why didn't you say so?
a mentor
I'm disgruntled in that FA changes what the O.P. enters and then substitues errant/misleading information. Factual data be hanged, it's okay to mistate the facts -- HUMBUG. The justfication is always the ICAO which has proven itself untrustworthy. What a shame.

There are those (like myself) qualified in website coding that would love to help correct this ovesight if just asked.
Gavin Hughes
Re AirHistory: I'm a contributor to that site and if you look up Dan Stijovich in their contributors you'll find other photos uploaded on FA as by Habujet. Methinks one and the same person and therefore, hopefully, not someone who regularly breaches copyright.
Mike Dryden
Soooo.... back on topic... what's the story behind the navy-like hi-viz paint job? Not what you'd expect to see on an F-111, is it?
Bobby Allison
@Mike - I'm pretty sure this is the original paint scheme from the beginnings of the TFX competition to find a new fighter for both the USAF and the USN. Of course, the Navy ditched the -111 for the F-14, and USAF stuck with it.
动态日志
需要 63-9766 1998年以来的完整历史搜索吗? 现在购买,一小时内即可收到。
日期 机型 始发地 目的地 出发 到达 飞行时间
No Recent History Data
注册用户(注册免费而且快捷!)可以查看3 months的历史记录。 加入
 

登录

还没有帐户吗? 现在就注册(免费),设置诸多自定义功能、航班提醒等等!
本网站使用cookie。您使用并继续浏览本网站,即表示您接受这一点。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟踪是由广告支持吗?
通过允许展示来自FlightAware.com的广告,您可以帮助我们使FlightAware保持免费。我们努力使我们的广告保持相关性,同时不显突兀,以创造一流的体验。在FlightAware上将广告加入白名单快捷而简单,或者请您考虑选择我们的高级帐户.
退出