Is this the Typhoon Cost Discussion thread? no? really? :dev2:

The engine configuration on the last model is fairly interesting.
it looks like a turbofan with a propellor on the back. and mean while, it also powers the rotor wings . great idea, but this is a completely new type of engine. it’s either turbofan or turboprop engine. it’s closer to a civilian turbofan with a uncompressed air-intake, but with more compressors within to fully utilize the engergy of the hot air created in the combustion chamber. it also need a very complicated set of gear boxes to deduct the rotor & propellor speed to prevent the wing tips to go supersonic. the gear boxes also need to separately contol the speed of two sets of wings. more aggressive design than the V-22, but if they come out with a comparatively reliable engine design, it should be more safe than v-22s, because model-change won’t involve the rotation of the power plants, the control interfaces are also easier to design

Might also be an autogyro design. much less complication there and works almost as good as powered rotors.

Is that last picture you posted artwork or real? I’d like to see a hi-res image. 🙂

Seems real to me. it came up in a google image search. dont know if theres a high res version of it. looks like f-18s to me, so the blue angels.

“honey, your afterburners are showing.. again.” :diablo:

Lol I think he’s talking about the inlet configuration. I think on the TF-102 it was more of a circumstantial feature brought on by having a broader side-by-side cockpit.

As you can see, the single seater has a much more conventional intake layout.

on the other hand, it might have been that experience with the TF-102 led dassault to consider the intake shape they have. but that is sheer speculation, i do not know.

Anybody who does, want to shed some light on this?

thanks. what a beautiful plane. I hope one will be preserved in a flying state just like the vulcan is in England.

that is one beautiful bit of metal. almost as pretty as the british vulcan 😎

I think all three aircraft are really good in their own rights, and the differences aren’t minor. I bet that in the end the RAF jags had the best set of gizmo’s of the lot. it has small wings and a small payload, so i bet it was the zippiest of the lot, meaning that it is more agile flying very low. for a medium-depth strike against 1985 east germany, jag would be my prime choice. For anything else, sluf.

Of course i dont know jack ***t. all my knowledge of aviation is from books, mags and sims.
For example Third wires’ strike fighters series allows one to fly relatively detailed approximations of the three aircraft under contention. In the sim, the Fitter comes off fairly well (fast and a good punch), but its big and heavy and this can make it just too slow when jinking and evading. jag rolls faster and seems to pick up speed a little faster when diving, making it better for getting the ******* out of dodge. sluf is just the bees knees in the sim. carries everything but the kitchen sink, and all at once too! keeps going forever if a tad slow. Do not plan on outrunning the migs in this, but you can lay some serious smack down with it.

I would love to read some more qualified opinions to contrast with my own limited ones.