Page 143 – Key Publishing

topspeed

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,131 through 2,145 (of 2,657 total)

← 1 2 3 … 142 143 144 … 176 177 178 →

Author

Posts
April 16, 2013 at 6:52 am in reply to: F-104G vs Mirage-IIIE Comparison #2238832

topspeed
Participant

Will all your passengers be experienced cyclists?

Will there be a BMI and age check of the passengers at check in?

Do disabled people and the elderly qualify, as long as they bring a superfit family relative to take up the slack?

:p

The Solar Impulse takes a grand total of 1 person, and travels at half the speed of a motor vehicle on a highway.

No they can be cyclists if you want to do speed records.

There is room for 8 under 40 kg children ( or 4 adults disabled or aged ).

Solar Impulse is not made to move 250 KTS it carries too much batteries and oxygen.

Yes and I agree…F104 is outstanding at low.

PS: The solar/battery/pedal powered plane is now here at the general aviation section.

Motherload; http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=117089

April 16, 2013 at 6:44 am in reply to: How about a solar powered passenger plane ? #394669

topspeed
Participant

This can only maintain decent speed from period 08:00 – 16:00, but since it takes few hours to decent from 25 000 meters untill 18:00-20:00 in the evening.

It is big drawback..but it is free energy all the time !

April 15, 2013 at 9:39 pm in reply to: How about a solar powered passenger plane ? #394778

topspeed
Participant

Here is latest developement on this !

From my blog.

April 15, 2013 at 8:48 pm in reply to: F-104G vs Mirage-IIIE Comparison #2239173

topspeed
Participant

topspeed, who wants to make a supercruising fighter of the size of the Me163 (more or less), powered by a 750kg thrust engine (at first) comes to explain to evrrybody that a fighter that actually did perform above M2.0 some 60 years ago couldn’t do it…

eeer… :rolleyes:

On the contrary..I said it was capable to do it stripped down and taking some speed.

Read the enclosed PDF that I brought of the 103 000 + ft claim and its reality.

I knew the F-104 is kinda like a holy cow and causes a big hulabaloo if it is revealed a bit further.

—

VR is developing…I decided to cut the rocket power and increase the turbofan size.

April 15, 2013 at 8:40 pm in reply to: F-104G vs Mirage-IIIE Comparison #2239176

topspeed
Participant

(a clue here: What’s the name of the French plane in this thread?:rolleyes:)

Topspeed, I admire your enthusiasm and humour.:)

I peg your pardon…I did forget the french Mirage III ( 2000 has 95 kN ).

April 15, 2013 at 8:36 pm in reply to: F-104G vs Mirage-IIIE Comparison #2239178

topspeed
Participant

Or the 40 to 60 seat passenger aircraft powered by 250m2 of solar panels, that required the passengers to pedal for pressurisation.:rolleyes:

On that note about trolling, where is F-18 Hamburger/F-16 Hotdog/J-31 Burritto…..?

I am actually pretty proud of my solar/battery/pedal powered passenger plane with 15 kg/m2 wingloading that cruises 240 kts at 25 km.

Especially the Goldschmied type air intake in nose section for ventilation etc. …and the xtreme drag reduction that makes it all happen.

Bear in mind that Solar Impulse goes at 15 km at 70 km/h using only 7 watts of power….and weighs 1600 kilos.

April 15, 2013 at 7:50 pm in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2239203

topspeed
Participant

The obvious problem with the location of the center of gravity.

Here is the CG..I made it visible for you.

It is right on the money ! Thanks to the new wing lay out !

:rolleyes:

Slightly altered version added for better STOL landings on empty plane ( sans AAMs and fuel ).

PS: Our pilots are not 195 cm tall like in your blue pic.

PS2: The volume cannot be more than 6 m2.

April 15, 2013 at 6:53 pm in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2239219

topspeed
Participant

volume of 12.4 m3
washed area of 62 m2

weight
fuselage 1300 kg
wings 640 kg
keels 75 kg
сhassis 135 kg
fuel 293 kg
empty 3150 kg
maximum 3863 kg

I do not see a place for the fuel tanks.
The obvious problem with the location of the center of gravity.

Fuel is all over in the wing…excluding the AAM bays. 900 kilos of it.

Engine is 317 kilos..radar 72 kilos…e-seat 40 kilos.

Winglets dont house fuel ( unlike in Hornet and F-35 that has also rudders and elevator full of fuel EE Lightning had also flaps 150 liters of fuel ). This needs only a very lite e-seat …no Flanker type. Just rail on back of the seat and a cartousse that puts it into motion.

Don’t start analyzing it..just throw me an estimate how this move in proportion to Mig-21.

BD-10 had empty weight of 725 kilos and went mach 0.85 using 7,8 kN at 60% power ( 70% in size of VR ).

April 15, 2013 at 5:46 pm in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2239281

topspeed
Participant

What are the technical specifications is the plane? I can help you with the calculation 😉

It is my VR described above.

Empty weight 1800 kg Mtow 3600 kg.

Turbofan out put 15.3 kN and 2 x 6 kN for rockets.

Wingfoil 4.5 % thick wing area 17 m2. Span 4.6 m and lenght 10.2 m.

Above the measurements for it.

Below again ( in the same scale with 109G like with MIG above ).

You don’t have to help me with the calculations..just tell me which do you think is faster and why ( show some basis for your claim ).

April 15, 2013 at 12:09 pm in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2239433

topspeed
Participant

here is a quiz for all rocket scientists..

Lets pretent my size estimate here is on the ball park ( it is simplified a tad ).

Which of these planes here is ( could be ) faster at any given altitude.

How/what do you base you assumption/ calculations ?

VR is 2.25 times smaller and has 15.3 kN turbofan and 2 x 6 kN rockets for 3 minutes to use.

Mig-21 has 69 kN engine thrust.

April 15, 2013 at 11:40 am in reply to: F-104G vs Mirage-IIIE Comparison #2239519

topspeed
Participant

I did, but it will not help you to understand the basics. 😎

No I understand basics..if you did not mean other than knots with kt ?

😀

April 15, 2013 at 11:39 am in reply to: F-104G vs Mirage-IIIE Comparison #2239520

topspeed
Participant

Please do the basics first before posting something like that. 😡

For the others in short. Thrust developed (not the installed one) versus frontal drag (the main one in speed/airpressure).

That is used for cars…zero drag lift coefficient is used in aeroplanes.

April 15, 2013 at 11:29 am in reply to: F-104G vs Mirage-IIIE Comparison #2239528

topspeed
Participant

“An example of this is the indicated airspeed of 757.5 knots at the start of the record zoom climb1. This speed when corrected to true airspeed at 39,575 feet corresponds to a true airspeed of 1,349.7 knots and a Mach number of 2.35.

From that link and you learn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_airspeed

😉

Read the whole story…the engine was no longer a regular J79..I am talking about the airplane that was used in military duties.

April 15, 2013 at 11:27 am in reply to: F-104G vs Mirage-IIIE Comparison #2239530

topspeed
Participant

Wing loading is not a limiting factor in top speed

Of course not..but in level flight with all weapons arsenal F-104 could not have gone anywhere mach 2.0.

Also depends a bit how you count the wing area..since also the fuselage part lifts a bit.

We know that rockets go mach 4 with almost no wings.

Power to weight ratio has to be considered as well…69 kN gives way less than 1.0 as power to weight ratio for F-104.

—

obli..you could study this on the way..: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch7-5.htm

April 15, 2013 at 10:17 am in reply to: F-104G vs Mirage-IIIE Comparison #2239560

topspeed
Participant

Nonsense.

Physics is nonsense ?

Only stripped F-104 after a dive at high could go mach 2.1. No military device with fuel and ammos and enuf fuel to come back could not have gone mach 2 with a F-104.

Plane is capable to withstand mach 2 would be propriate term.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 2,131 through 2,145 (of 2,657 total)

← 1 2 3 … 142 143 144 … 176 177 178 →