dark light

topspeed

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,651 through 1,665 (of 2,657 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • topspeed
    Participant

    If Thrust to weight ratio and wing loading were the only parameters that mattered than fighter design would have frozen in the 1970’s. The Su-27 itself shows that is not the case, wing loading is not particularly low yet it is a fantastically maneuverable aircraft.

    But it is slipping and sliding like in Frozen the moose/reindeer !

    in reply to: Flying bicycle 1961 ! #979062
    topspeed
    Participant

    Thanks for posting Topspeed…

    Nice to see a young derek piggot in action : )

    My pleasure….here is more about them; http://www.humanpoweredflying.propdesigner.co.uk/html/flights.html

    in reply to: Flying bicycle 1961 ! #979365
    topspeed
    Participant

    Musculair II needs only 280 watts to operate.

    http://www.skytec-engineering.de/musculair.htm

    in reply to: Breaking the sound barrier at 18 – 1960s #979372
    topspeed
    Participant

    First finn was Lauri Pekuri in 1958 with a Folland Gnat !

    11 years after Chuck; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Yeager

    in reply to: Flying bicycle 1961 ! #979491
    topspeed
    Participant

    45 years later…Finland hasn’t been able to fly with pedal or solar power !

    topspeed
    Participant

    According to you, to evaluate a high maneuverability aircraft, we need to focus on what parameters?

    G-limit !
    Turn radius !
    Climb rate !
    Roll rate !
    Wing loading !
    TWR ?
    specs of engines (Max thrust & TWR of engines)

    as far as I understand, TWR and wing loading are two parameters that need to be focused, TWR ratio is 0.9-1. And always low wing loading. From TWR (0.9-1 ratio) and low wing loading, we will have an aircraft maneuver

    I couldn’t agree more !

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2249374
    topspeed
    Participant

    You can easily check my theory using universal lift equation at 50 km…the air is 1/1000th thick compared to sea level.

    http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/lifteq.html

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2249377
    topspeed
    Participant

    Basic roketry is a good to know too; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

    Spiral does look cool !

    This may not be only way to reach lower orbits; http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/spiralan.gif

    I personally like to read these numbers here; http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/combined_white_knight_spaceshipone_flight_tests

    Like Mach 3.09 at 65 km etc !

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2249380
    topspeed
    Participant

    Here are some usefull links to understandthe aerodynamics in thin air.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wstdatmo.htm

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html

    I also calculated the mothership can “fly” t ( lowest ) LEO altitude with a space rocket ( but it has to be double sized ).

    Delta-v could come handy too; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2249443
    topspeed
    Participant

    The point remains, you want to fight over the enemies territory not yours. Tiny “efficient” fighter are of little use. They may be cute and fast, but about their only use is to look pretty at local airshows.

    How about that whole system now..does it look effective ?

    er, climb to 70000ft on your turbofan? and the air it needs will come from…. where?

    with such a short wing span, climbing that high would need a high supersonic speed, something your turbofan simply can not provide

    in fact, what you’re trying to make is a little bit like this:

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]216212[/ATTACH]

    chances are you won’t make it work before a couple of centuries…

    I squeezed a couple of centuries into 7 months…didn’t I ?

    Happy Valentines day everyone !

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2249813
    topspeed
    Participant

    Another interesting option would be to use 2 very advanced stealth fighters with each carrying 4 concealed AMRAAMs and 2 AIM9 mssiles + max 6 external AIM9Xs and a small radar ( or use the mother ship awacs radar for fire control ) !

    Pretty cool system or what ?

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2249887
    topspeed
    Participant

    A side effect of this if the 2 x 7 kN rocket boosters on GM-1 jets were burning long enuf that all pilots jettisoned from mother ship at 50-60 km altitude could climb to 80 + km altitude…thus all becoming officially astronauts/cosmonauts/taigonauts !

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2250024
    topspeed
    Participant

    Making a plane really small and then getting it high to 40-50 km under a solar/rocket powered mother ship ( awx ) could be doable also.

    topspeed
    Participant

    Topspeed ,in this thread alone ,you have gone from one type of plane use to another [military-passenger ] ,solar panel,batteries,human power and now rockets .Non of the aircraft you have shown could even sit on a runway in the weather conditions we are having now.
    In 16 years you really ought to have alot more to show for it than you have,in 16 years time technology SHOULD make your designs obsolete,in 16 years time the majority of us on here will be dead or too old to pedal.

    Well I got this spesific craft idea on the drawing board at around..3 days ago ( post # 98 )..the first pedal/solar powered passenger craft around 2011/2012 winter. I think this rocket ship using the first tank/stage could take off at any given weather…and get above clouds pretty quickly..to fly on solar alone.

    Military ship came when someone said this is boring….there seems to be more people in the military thread…..:: )

    topspeed
    Participant

    Hydrogen tanks ? Are you serious ?

    As for a Mach 1.5 plane with props, forget it, that will not work. Even if I forget aerodynamic questions, structurally, the props will not survive.

    If all this was so simple, you can be sure that Boeing, Airbus and the others would have done it already.

    I’ll repeat myself, go back to RC planes. There you will have interesting applications, some of which that you even might be able to market.

    Yes okay Frank..I think I got the point here made.

    No the props fold after the solar powered climb to 25-30 km has been done..and after that the hydrogen-oksidizer rocket will be used…at pretty morderate thrust..but in really thin air it might reach Mach 2+ at 50-60 km altitude…from there it can glide 2000-3000 km easily. Don’t have to since it can switch to prop powered flight at 40 km onwards to lower altitudes at close to mach 1 “glide” decent to about 20 km…and slower and slower from there.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,651 through 1,665 (of 2,657 total)