dark light

Sign

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 1,400 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Should the Army revisit the Comanche? #2261498
    Sign
    Participant

    Why not something more like this?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-97_Raider
    (why more firepower and sensors)

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2262061
    Sign
    Participant

    Lol not very informative but entertaining nonetheless. However I don’t know who found their catch phrase but IMO they should fired him/her.

    “We’re Gripen pilots, we fly”… no kidding! I wasn’t really expecting them to walk to their targets with their GBU on their backpack lol…

    they refering to fast turnaround, high availability, low maint. Maybe even the low operational cost i weighted in. An AF afford more flight with the gripen than competitors. Thats why “we fly” and aren´t on the ground.

    in reply to: Dassault Rafale #14 – News & Discussion #2262745
    Sign
    Participant

    http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20130107trib000741052/le-bresil-reproche-au-rafale-son-cout-de-maintenance-eleve.html

    Finally a maintenance estimates that does sound more realistic compared to the gripen which makes the rafale more competitive.

    A french paper making a 1USD to 1 Euro estimate on purpuse? 4500USD/flighthour are Gripens most acknowlaged figure

    in reply to: Educate me on wing tip vortex #2262764
    Sign
    Participant

    I know what causes a wing tip vortex. What I dont understand is why plane designers dont do more about it. Most people know that planes that have wing tip tanks have better range since the tanks block the vortex drag.

    So my question is why dont they just put end plates on the wings to prevent the pressure wrap around that causes the vortex an hence the drag? I know a lot of newer planes have the turned up wing tips that apparently does away with some of this problem since they go have better range. However it seems to me that a full end plate would do a better job like the old wing tip fuel tanks.

    There must be a simple answer to this but I have not ever got a straight easy to understand answer.

    i would think flutter effects for supersonic ACs are the main thing against it and maybe RCS. Planes like Mirage F1 and F-16 do use on-tip missiles to reduce vortex.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2013 #2264621
    Sign
    Participant

    Airbus Military flies winglet-equipped C295

    http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=49079

    it doesnt look like an effective AEW platform with those winglets on a high winged AC.

    in reply to: Most beautiful aircraft #2264623
    Sign
    Participant

    The most beautiful Canadian design…

    [ATTACH]211008[/ATTACH]

    what is that?

    in reply to: Most beautiful aircraft #2264625
    Sign
    Participant

    Draken

    This is my favorite Arrow in the sky

    in reply to: Dorsal fin intakes and stealth #2265810
    Sign
    Participant

    Are there going to be Air-to-Air battles in future?
    Why not use all drones w missiles andr drones with radars?

    in reply to: X-32A vs X-35A again #2266688
    Sign
    Participant

    the canards helps to increase lift on the main wings and lower stall speed alot.
    also helps to increase high AoA stability.

    so close coupled delta-canard is very suited for carrier ops.

    in reply to: Ugliest Aircraft, your opinions… #2266737
    Sign
    Participant

    It looks like a parts bin special, like they’ve selected parts of different aircraft that don’t match. Mirage was stunning, elegant and simple. Typhoon looks like an evolution of the Mirage line in some resects.

    Rafale looks like a much older design than other 4.5 gen aircraft.

    the only thing that “sticks out” and arent good looking is the fuel probe. I could have lived without that…

    in reply to: Ugliest Aircraft, your opinions… #2267042
    Sign
    Participant

    The Delta Mirages are some of the best looking jet aircraft IMO, but the Rafale is very ugly, and looks dated (the canopy looks 40 years old on the single seater, and 60 years old on the twin!)
    http://i610.photobucket.com/albums/tt183/kralnevil/rafale_3.jpg

    i cant really follow you there.. Rafale is gorgeous beast, better looking than allmost anything. Mirage is lookers, but not as rafale.

    in reply to: Fuselage layout pros and cons #2267085
    Sign
    Participant

    Lift is also drag, so if you plan on flying really fast it’s counter productive
    to have lift, but OTOH it’s good for turn, especially at alt. where the high speed will also take place,
    so there will be priorities that dictate what it will gravitate towards

    bodylift makes you wont need as much winglift, and therefore, smaller wing needed and therefore less total drag. Also when the wings and body blends together aerodynamic effects makes it less daggy.
    The perfect example is the x-48.

    in reply to: Ugliest Aircraft, your opinions… #2267106
    Sign
    Participant

    The X-32 is a brilliant design. Boeing could have done wonders with the design scaling it up with a pair of F414 or scaling down with an F110. They could have undercut F-35 even post JSF contest.

    in what way is it brilliant?

    in reply to: F-5 OPERATORS & FORMER OPERATORS….. #2267507
    Sign
    Participant

    those where the “MIGs” in the movie “Top Gun”

    in reply to: J-20 Thread 8 #2267661
    Sign
    Participant

    Aren’t the Eurofighter and Gripen considered to be multi-role…?

    yes they are mutlirole, interceptor optimized (there biggest roles)

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 1,400 total)