@Schorsch,
I’m perfectly fine with this standard, just didn’t knew whether it was commonly used that way or not, as I’m just used to the degrees expression for throttle settings. That’s why I asked.
No, you have a serious comprehension problem. I never said you said throttle % is commonly used. But contrary to what you keep saying 0% throttle is idle & 100% throttle is max dry/military power even for the Tornado.
I am not the one missing the point.
Did I? Feel free to quote me directly on claiming throttle percentage is commonly used! If you can’t I suggest you shut up!
And as I said Tornado throttle settings are expressed in degrees, they don’t use percent at all!
That’s funny buy after 2016, but enter service in 2015. ;diablo:
And once again 2 guns, I suppose it might mean a twin barrel gun. Anyway nice pictures and the flight testing seems to make good progress.
The problem here is that these aircraft have a low RCS and fly very low, this in combination makes it difficult to spot them. The performance of the interceptors as such is of no concern here.
A similar load on a smaller airframe has a greater impact on its total drag and subsequently needs more thrust to compensate, same is true for lift. This has also an impact on range.
You have a serious comprehension problem. Try again…
Do you want to kid me? Where have I said that throttle percentage is commonly used? Oh nowhere you yet repeat it the third time! Why?
So why are to denying the fact then?
I’m not denying that RPM & throttle % aren’t linear, but in your anger to play the smart guy you entirely missed the point.
The program’s lastest cost projections are based on the ACTUAL COSTS of LRIP aircraft thus far.
That’s what I actually noted in the one liner smarty.
Thanks for the translations Arthuro. Btw AREOS should be available later this year, the testing at Mont-de-Marsan seems to progress well.
jackjack,
are you incapable to talk about the F-35 without permanent references to other aircraft? And why is everyone who is not a F-35 fanboy like you automatically a fanboy of something else huh?
@jj,
what you left out is the “current year” dollars. What’s the then year dollars/au$?
I speak about LM’s own cost predictions/promises. I don’t have an Australian centric view, why should I?
With regards to the Typhoon it’s not related to the subject of F-35 news.
We hear those cost claims from time to time it’s a never ending discussion until the real cost is achieved and that is when the aircraft are sold at that price. Up to date the aircraft is considerably more expensive, but it’s just LRIP.
My perception is than T-50’s intake evolving from S-37’s closely placed twin engine with S-duct to the current configuration has something undisclosed which may exceed S-duct’s radar blocking effect.
This would require an entire redesign of the rear fuselage! The Su-47s engines are directly placed next to each other, without any gap. This is not true for the T-50.
Yes for ALL jet/turbine engines! As already posted % throttle is not very commonly used but when it is, 0% throttle is idle & 100% throttle is max dry/military with afterburner ‘throttle/power’ given as AB1, AB2, AB3…
And as already posted this is not true for the Tornado for example where throttle settings are expressed in degrees not percentage and there is no AB1, AB2… either. You have the min RH and max RH setting in an analogue range in between.
Assuming a linear corrilation between throttle & RPM…
What else, everything else wouldn’t make sense.
But the important fact is that 0% throttle is idle power, not zero power (aka engine off) & 100% throttle is max dry/military power, not max afterburner power.
That’s actually what I explained in my first reply to jj concerning that topic.
Nice images, thanks for sharing them.
In the end we may conclude that the possibly low life time of older Russian APUs made them more dependent from external supplies during daily operations and that the Su-34s will receive more advanced APUs which don’t need to be treated that way.