Concorde did not need to use afterburner to break Mach 1. Had that been necessary, how could it have supercruised at Mach 2?
From what I have read, it was more fuel efficient to use afterburner to break through Mach 1 and this practice was adopted.
i was under the impression that concorde used A/B to avoid shockstall never worked on concorde myself, just remember being told it had to use A/B to break M1 and assumed the above.
well the missus is Danish.
wouldn’t be fair to say anything else.. not that i would…
well the missus is Danish.
wouldn’t be fair to say anything else.. not that i would…
hey I’m sure theres a few Phantoms still around, the way things are going with this government it might be a good idea
it may have been a good idea in the late 70’s if they had decided to order a couple of proper carriers, new radars, BVR missiles on the phantoms that we had.. but they would have needed replacing by the mid 90’s when the only option was F-18c or sweating it out until the E.
hmm i had actually written about a naval P.110 and proper carriers here but im not going to dust off that subject just yet
i have done in the past but at the moment defence spending isn’t a priority.
I thought Concorde had to use afterburners to accelerate?
she has to use A/B to break Mach 1 but is capable of supercruise.
I thought Concorde had to use afterburners to accelerate?
she has to use A/B to break Mach 1 but is capable of supercruise.
Thanks! This all started when a buddy of mine and I were playing “what if” and I said it would be interesting to re-engine a B-58 with something like the F-100/F-110/F-119 and see what would happen when a supercruising strategic bomber was put into the fleet.
B-58 was a tactical bomber in a strategic bombers clothes, show me a supercrusing F-111 and i will be much more impressed.
Thanks! This all started when a buddy of mine and I were playing “what if” and I said it would be interesting to re-engine a B-58 with something like the F-100/F-110/F-119 and see what would happen when a supercruising strategic bomber was put into the fleet.
B-58 was a tactical bomber in a strategic bombers clothes, show me a supercrusing F-111 and i will be much more impressed.
Swiss competition: Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen
Indian MRCA: Rafale, Typhoon, F-16I, F-18E, MiG-35, Gripen
Brazil FX: Rafale, Gripen, F-18
Libya (they didn’t sign anything final with Russia yet): Flanker, Rafale
Nederlands: F-35, Gripen
Grippen
Mig-35
i would love to say Gripen but something calls F-18 to me VERY LOUDLY
Flanker
F-35
Swiss competition: Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen
Indian MRCA: Rafale, Typhoon, F-16I, F-18E, MiG-35, Gripen
Brazil FX: Rafale, Gripen, F-18
Libya (they didn’t sign anything final with Russia yet): Flanker, Rafale
Nederlands: F-35, Gripen
Grippen
Mig-35
i would love to say Gripen but something calls F-18 to me VERY LOUDLY
Flanker
F-35
They should re-activate HMS nottingham too, 12 destroyers again keep them in service until after all the type 45s have been handed over then make an arguement for their replacement with Type 45 batch 2.
not really possible in the current financial climate, perhaps after C1 finishes production in 15 years or so(a guess at that figure) when the economy is likely to be far better than it is today perhaps there will be room for T45B3 using the same extended hull from the C.1’s
while we are talking about T42’s it would have been nice to see a couple preserved as museums!!!
nice, not my ideal new years but each to himself, as with most of Male Brits i went out for a few and ended up face down in a curry and sick in the roast beef new years day. so i guess you win that one.
nice, not my ideal new years but each to himself, as with most of Male Brits i went out for a few and ended up face down in a curry and sick in the roast beef new years day. so i guess you win that one.
even so it’s hardly a replacement for the 2 T45’s that were dropped from production