dark light

arquebus

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 268 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: battle of the sexiest: Rafale or Pak-fa? #2189303
    arquebus
    Participant

    Since were allowing non-fighters to compete, this is the most beautiful aircraft. Its quite a good low level point defense fighter actually.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]249183[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: battle of the sexiest: Rafale or Pak-fa? #2190282
    arquebus
    Participant

    ^ F-14 is ugly as hell

    Youre insane, the F-14 was an aerodynamically perfect aircraft with even its fuselage acting as a lifting body. Its unfortunate is was made a swing wing as it could have equaled the F-15 in fixed wing configuration. As a non-FBW jet it is aerodynamically as good as you can get. Unfortunetly FBW favores either canards or barn door sized elevators that equal the size of the wing so this classic beauty is lost.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]249176[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: battle of the sexiest: Rafale or Pak-fa? #2192257
    arquebus
    Participant

    This plane would sell well if they put it into production
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]249152[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: What were the potential market for the Mirage 4000? #2194688
    arquebus
    Participant

    Higher wing loading? It was pretty high anyway.

    whoops, meant to say lower wing loading…will correct that post

    arquebus
    Participant

    Depending on how the aircraft is designed, it may not even be possible to put the CoG behind the CoL. Hell, why haven’t they done it with the F-15 if it were that easy?

    Not all aircraft benefit from FBW, the Mig-29 is a perfect example, it being non-FBW being an advantage in that the forward weight and aerodynamic stability is what help it pull off extreme AoA maneuver and pull back into forward flight. The F-18C was modified with larger LERX which giving AoA improvement did not match the Mig-29 in its ability to recover from a maneuver to pull back into forward flight. Other examples could be given, the 737 is a valid example in that weight distribution is already set in the design of the fuselage layout and so cargo carrying ability would be lost if it were converted to FBW.

    in reply to: What were the potential market for the Mirage 4000? #2195704
    arquebus
    Participant

    Now, as far as the wing choice goes, the major drawback of the delta for a fighter was its sustained turn performance

    No, it would have very good sustained turn performance with its large wing area and light wing loading. FBW makes a delta wing a good option, eurofighter is pretty much a delta wing.

    in reply to: What were the potential market for the Mirage 4000? #2195732
    arquebus
    Participant

    assume the Saudis chose the M4k instead of the Tornado (something which probably would’ve been better to begin with)

    The mirage airframe was very efficient for a single engine light fighter but the wrong layout for a large twin engine fighter. The Tornado fuselage is the proper layout for a large twin engine fighter and would have been top class if it had fixed wings and a lower wing loading. Making it swing-wing was idiotic and it handled like a hog.

    arquebus
    Participant

    The F-16 was an unstable design and FBW was inherent to the design.

    Its very easy to modify ANY aircraft to be neutrally unstable like the F-16, its just a matter of shifting the CoG back to match the CoL

    arquebus
    Participant

    I don’t see it though.

    Its the combined effect of both FBW and TWR that make it a marked improvement. Higher thrust alone would not make a huge improvement which is why the Tigershark proved to be so underwhelming. And FBW alone would not make a noticeable improvement. But together the effects are similar to what you get with the F-16.

    arquebus
    Participant

    The F-16 had a TWR well over 1:1 and LERX.

    When I say that FBW/M53 modification would put it in the same class as the F-16 I dont mean exactly equal. Im just saying that there would be significant improvement that would make it near to what the F-16 is.

    arquebus
    Participant

    Why do you suppose fitting FBW and an M53 would have changed much, the F-1 was never a near exceptional aircraft in the first place. It wasn’t even the best Mirage, or even the second best.

    FBW and upengining the F-1 could put the F-1 in the same class as the F-16. The F-16 also has a relatively high wing loading and was designed for high rate of turn, not high AoA maneuver. But once you introduce FBW then large wings with low wing loading become a better option. The reason that the F-1 has such a high wing loading is that with the absence of FBW a jet can be very stiff and so the large tail surfaces compared to the wing area give the F-1 extra control and maneuverability.

    in reply to: Mirage F.1 vs Kfir and Cheetah (the Mirage clones) #2197228
    arquebus
    Participant

    Ultimately, if the Kfir has a greater payload and range, it can be excused for having a greater empty weight, surely?

    I highly doubt either payload or range is much better on the Kfir vs Cheetah C. The J-79 thrust is not much greater than the Atar 9K50C-11 and the Cheetah has an extented fuselage like the F-1. And the Cheetah has canards, so all that together would mean they are close to equal.

    arquebus
    Participant

    you brought up a claim about F-14 and F.1 kills

    no I didnt, you did

    what I said is:

    Citing unsubstantiated kills by the F-14 the Iran/Iraq war as proof shows how childish and desperate Y-20 is to make his point.

    first of all the sources are unsubstantiated, second, even if they were confirmed you have to take each action into context, a fighter shooting another fighter down in combat does not automatically make it better.

    arquebus
    Participant

    ok, so f.1 kills on f-14s are legitimate, but f-14 kills on f.1 are unsubstantiated. talk about cherry picking and bias.
    who do you really work for? Trump?

    so basically you are winning an argument by reversing your stupid argument and then assuming that I subscribe to the ‘opposite’ of what you say, right?

    in reply to: Mirage F.1 vs Kfir and Cheetah (the Mirage clones) #2198114
    arquebus
    Participant

    The Mirage III/V series sold very well only because they were cheap (I think about $5M in the 80s) and there was no other real option back in the 60s if you werent part of the warsaw pact/commie club, the US was forcing the F-104 on everyone. The M3/5 was horribly unmaneuverable, a sharp turn did little beyond yaw the aircraft and bleed speed as the ailevons acted more as giant air breaks. The reason Isreal and South Africa used them is that Isreal had no good choice of US aircraft in the 60s, the M3/5 was the only mach 2 option, and the fact that they stole (we all know that France looked the other way) the blueprints meant they were safe from embargos. Isreal and South Africa upgraded to Kfir/Cheetah only because the Kfir program started way back in the 60s before F-15s and F-16s would make them unnecessary. South Africa was still under apartheid when they did the Cheetah conversions.

    The F-1 on the other hand was an outstanding fighter that could hold its own against anything at the time it was introduced and is still a good fighter by todays standards. But FBW made the pure-delta wing a good thing again with the M2K so the F-1 stopped being as important.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 268 total)