And around here, if you see a guy in tracksuit in his late teens / early 20s driving a large, high powered Merc, you can bet he’s a drug runner.. But again, you usually only have time to see their tail lights as they drive at over 100 km/h in the inner cities.
Can’t you guys use proper measure units, like: litres, kilometres, … ? 😀
Guys, it doesn’t matter if you like the guy or not. Rules here don’t allow you to insult anyone.
So, please keep this tidy.
Thx
I think I blitzed it… The moderator abilities are still crap tbh
Closed pending review.
As far as I know, the other contender wasn’t build in Belgium either… Of course it would have been smarter to be on board from the start as we did with the F-16.
Well, a carrier on the Yser or on the English Channel would look good… There is just one question left… How could we call it? :p
And, it is now time to close this thread, let’s stop with the politics and flag waving right here, gents.
Brewster Buffalos had it as well.
And it is moved to general discussion… Indeed, it is more fitting.
Topspeed,
What would be the military purpose of such a craft (For the sake of the argument, I’m going with the idea that your fantasy would be viable)?
A bomber needs long range, preferably high speed, be able to be on target fast and could theoretically drop bombs from high altitude.
You’re just missing one factor, large props will be large radar reflectors. So, that thing will be shot down long before getting to the target. Possibly already on ascent. So, except for air support ops in low intensity warfare, it will not fly. Dismissed.
Fighters ? You need compact airframes able to withstand a lot of abuse and G forces. Hence, they are overbuilt, and heavy in comparison. They need to be even faster, with good acceleration (ok, some lack those – friendly nudge to the SH here ). Its operating altitude will be from a couple of feet above ground to much higher. So, your idea isn’t applicable here as well.
It leaves you a comms relay, or some observation aircraft. Forget about AEW, the systems themselves will use more power than you can provide.
As others say, you will need nuclear power in a miniaturized way (and again, I’d hate one plane to be shot down anywhere close to me), or some unknown power source/technology for electric combat planes.
Let’s review this thread in 40 years, or if anything changes to make it viable.
Thread closed.
Thread cleaned up.
Please leave the politics and national banter out of it.
Thank you.
Back on topic guys, please 🙂
Mercurius,
Yes, one account with higher privileges has been hacked last week. They managed to ban several members, as well as mess with the threads. The issue has been resolved, accounts have been reactivated, and threads should be back. If not, PM me.
Bayar,
When someone makes a thread solely with pictures from sales brochures, and minimal text, without engaging in discussions, it is advertising. And such threads will be deleted. Key Publishing pays for these forums to exist, but it doesn’t exist to offer free ads. For that, they have a marketing department, where advertisers can turn to. It is a commercial company, you know.
The alternative is that such posts get zapped, and normally, the poster gets banned right away. Just so you know.
All I’m asking is to keeps things tidy and keep all the news regarding turkish aerospace developments in one thread. Facts are ok, nationalism isn’t. And if a plane is actually flying and justifies a thread, then no problem.
As of now, the TF-X is a paper plane, and too small a programme to justify a thread. We must try to keep thing a little tidy. Sorry.