My dad designed those (not those exact planes... I think, but he might have) when he worked for lockheed.
He loves planes, I know he worked on the highly secretive stuff, vertical takeoff and the likes, padlocks on the computers, he would have kept that job forever if he could have the way he talks about it.

@ wookie, top speed mach 1ish?
[EDIT]
nevermind, mach 2 ish, I've picked up a couple things, but not a whole lot

 

@Sgt Wookie

UMAD? Of course not, you 're Wookie. But I wonder will you build it before or after you start an affair with a lady from your local flight control tower.
BTW, the site at the link was currrazy! You guys at the States are either too many or have too much time in your hands.

 

@ wookie, top speed mach 1ish?
[EDIT]
nevermind, mach 2 ish, I've picked up a couple things, but not a whole lot

The early versions were capable of Mach 2.3+.
After awhile, they started adding on external antennas for SAM (Surface to Air Missile) detection, which reduced the top speed. Even the relatively small surface area the antennas represented placed one heck of a drag on the aircraft at high speeds. Towards the end, they were limited to around Mach 1.8+.

There is a photo of the actual aircraft that the model depicts, here:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Marines/McDonnell-F-4J-Phantom/1053401/L/
That photo was taken at Davis-Monthan AFB (DMA / KDMA),Tucson, Arizona, November 4, 1989.
You can see a couple of the SAM antennas; one is just aft (rearward) of the right intake at the top, covered with a white circle, and another antenna just forward of the leading edge of the wing, hanging down from the bottom of the intake.

The aircraft was retired from service when assigned to VMFAT-101 "Sharpshooters" at MCAS Yuma, Arizona. VMFAT-101 is a training squadron for Marine fighter pilots and radar intercept officers. Since the time that aircraft was retired, VMFAT-101 moved to MCAS El Toro, CA in 1987, and later to MCAS Miramar, CA

 

The early versions were capable of Mach 2.3+.
After awhile, they started adding on external antennas for SAM (Surface to Air Missile) detection, which reduced the top speed. Even the relatively small surface area the antennas represented placed one heck of a drag on the aircraft at high speeds. Towards the end, they were limited to around Mach 1.8+.

There is a photo of the actual aircraft that the model depicts, here:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Marines/McDonnell-F-4J-Phantom/1053401/L/
That photo was taken at Davis-Monthan AFB (DMA / KDMA),Tucson, Arizona, November 4, 1989.
You can see a couple of the SAM antennas; one is just aft (rearward) of the right intake at the top, covered with a white circle, and another antenna just forward of the leading edge of the wing, hanging down from the bottom of the intake.

The aircraft was retired from service when assigned to VMFAT-101 "Sharpshooters" at MCAS Yuma, Arizona. VMFAT-101 is a training squadron for Marine fighter pilots and radar intercept officers. Since the time that aircraft was retired, VMFAT-101 moved to MCAS El Toro, CA in 1987, and later to MCAS Miramar, CA

I was basing it more on the fact that the air intakes were protruding from the fuselage, according to my dad at about mach 1.1 the air begins to view it all as one smooth shape, but I think I had it backwards, I was thinking of the planes with the intakes tucked in being limited to mach 1.1.

@Sgt Wookie
BTW, the site at the link was currrazy! You guys at the States are either too many or have too much time in your hands.

We just like going farther, faster, and bigger

 

I went to an armed forced day show at Andrews that had these same aircraft fly. Watch the B-58 knock some people back into their seats - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmseXJ7DV4c

 

I have a HobbyZone Mini Super Cub which was a present and my original FPV platform.

I've now got a MS Composit Swift II Flying Wing, which will be complete in about a month. It can fly at up to 60 mph, ideal for my OSD demos to show the very fast display refresh rate (up to 30 Hz.)

 

My hat is off to the guys and gals that fly the Warthog for real. Among warbird fanatics in the desktop Microsoft FS9 flight sim community, Aerosoft produces the A10 that is regarded as having the most realistic aerodynamic performance. I acquired a copy out of curiousity, but found that aircraft extremely unstable and tricky to handle in even mildly turbulent air. Landing the Warthog in a crosswind was daunting to say the least.

My Aerosoft Warthog CD now gathers dust, and I have a new appreciation for the great skill required of our servicemen who fly that particular aircraft into harm's way. Give me a lumbering Boeing 767 passenger jet any day,and I'll crab her side-long down to the runway threshold with opposed rudder and aileron, no matter the crosswind component, but that A10 requires more finesse than I could ever develop seated at my humble desktop flight deck.

 

I would put that in the myth category, though all the pilots describe a sensation of the aircraft stopping every time the gun is fired. The whole aircraft has double and triple redundancy. The engines are double redundancy.

I would too.

In an interview, it was said that one of the engines could take fire, and fall off the plane and the pilot wouldn't even know until he landed the plane.

It was 2 over sized engines designed as a redundant backup system, each engine only needs to run at 50% for FULL capability of the aircraft.

 

My favorite is the de Havilland Mosquito. This is a WWII plane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

Good choice!

Made of plywood, a great performer and inexpensive.

My vote for best plane ever is the Douglas DC-3.

 

I am a fan of the P-3C Orion. Not as glamorous but a wonderful aircraft. I want to build this bad boy:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2338568

 

Anyone here into Flight Simulator games? I flew this baby in FS2004. Even made that awesome sound as it fired.

 

I was playing FSX a while ago. I actually tried to take the formal way and take the licences first. That b**ch in the second certificate (after my solo flight) for the VFR test just didn't want to forgive a single small deviation from the course or the speed limits.

After 3 serious efforts withing 1 year and a half I gave up.