dark light

topspeed

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,161 through 2,175 (of 2,657 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2240416
    topspeed
    Participant

    …er…what is it ?

    in reply to: BD-10 and other homebuilt mach 1 contenders ! #394783
    topspeed
    Participant
    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2240681
    topspeed
    Participant

    …to really save €:s and £:s !

    Here is a tought that came into my mind just an hour ago.

    😀

    Finland never had a carrier, but it would be fancy to have one.

    in reply to: BD-10 and other homebuilt mach 1 contenders ! #394784
    topspeed
    Participant

    Videos:

    BD-10 PART 1; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFcXSqrkmOQ

    BD-10 PART 2; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O206cGDny4c

    1st Video introperson tells it had no problems at Mach 0.8-0.9..used only 60% power to go mach 0.85.

    in reply to: BD-10 and other homebuilt mach 1 contenders ! #394787
    topspeed
    Participant

    BD-10

    BD-10 data tells it is mach 1.4 mover ( in wiki ).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Q8O3B1aWM

    It never went beyond mach 0.83…who to believe ?

    in reply to: BD-10 and other homebuilt mach 1 contenders ! #394788
    topspeed
    Participant

    Secret Agenda ?

    No secret agenda…( if not downsizing is a secret ) !

    This is a 7th generation jet interceptor.

    I figure by 2040 there is paractically no oil left.

    At present a J-20 burns 90 000 liter / hr at full AB ( SFC 2.0 ).

    A regular bio fuel plant produces around 10 000 000 liters a year. This is comsumed by a J-20 and alike in 100-150 AB hours.

    For Finland sized country this V-raptor could still be used in 65 copies and yet be flown at 500 hrs annually each with one biofuel factorys annual capacity.

    I am thinking into the future.

    Thanks for asking.

    rgds,

    Juke

    :rolleyes:

    PS: …and yes done a lot of planning since I will make flying R/C copy soon…I wanna be sure it is right at the first try. Furthermore I don’t want anyone to call MAYDAY; ” Disintegrating….”, like someone called on BD-10. Mach 1 is a brickwall.

    in reply to: BD-10 and other homebuilt mach 1 contenders ! #394793
    topspeed
    Participant

    I think its main attraction was as a “personal fighter-type” aircraft as opposed to its hypothetical supersonic speed.

    It was strongly marketed and widely made publicly known as a super sonic homebuilt.

    in reply to: Small Air Forces Thread #15 #2240860
    topspeed
    Participant

    I can understand how it might be difficult to determine whether an airframe is a genuine MiG-19 or a J-6. Russian-built MiG-19s would be around sixty years old now and no longer airworthy (unless those MiGs flew for the USAF). Any MiG-19 derivative, still flying, would have to been built in China (like everything else).

    Also sukhoi and mig designs were almost alike at one time…besides mig-19 and mig-17 are almost alike from that perspective.

    in reply to: BD-10 and other homebuilt mach 1 contenders ! #394794
    topspeed
    Participant

    Also regulatory issues in the UK for anything faster than 250 knots

    Mogy

    Ok I see…so what this could become is like in Switzerland they can bring arms home for reservists right ?

    So a group of reservists like lets say 10 all pay 100 000 £/$/€ ( or larger community like 1000 people all pay 1000 ) and these 10 reservist ( per plane ) then maintain this ac and fly it no faster than 250 kts on weekends to keep up their skills.

    On army rehersals they can fit the craft with 2 rockets ( 130 kg each cost lets say 800 €/$/£ ) they can experience the mach 1 macig all when no restrictions apply.

    Community of 1000 could pay for these 10 people then the needed flying time. I bet the PW617F-E won’t burn much more than 300 liters / hr.

    This sized 1800 kg jet cannot cost more than a 10 000 000 usd a piece.

    in reply to: BD-10 and other homebuilt mach 1 contenders ! #394799
    topspeed
    Participant

    RCS

    This could also be made into a sales article while it carries an AESA radar and a cannon + 4 concealed AAMs.

    Anyone interested ?

    5.2 x smaller than a J.20 it has 1/5.2^2=1/27 just one twenty seventh RCS…am I right..if othervise stealth design done correctly..or more if even better made.

    in reply to: BD-10 and other homebuilt mach 1 contenders ! #394800
    topspeed
    Participant

    I think its main attraction was as a “personal fighter-type” aircraft as opposed to its hypothetical supersonic speed.
    It was seen as a sport aircraft or perhaps as a two seat business jet for an owner-pilot.

    Still, the maket might be limited, I’m not sure I’d fly it without military fast-jet training.

    Thanks Boyle for your input !

    Do you think this cruise engine + 2 rockets is a viable idea to go supersonic pretty cheaply ?

    Here is another contender…David Rose’s MACH BUSTER.

    http://i642.photobucket.com/albums/uu145/p_odea/MachBuster.jpg

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2241652
    topspeed
    Participant

    There is another issue with the Super light fighter that you are merrily inventing here topspeed. You gave a nice long list of potential conflicts where this super cheap fighter would be ideal but fail to notice the elephant in the room: what happens when one side says “hang it all” and buys a more capable fighter!

    Have a look at the Eritrean-Etheopian War if you are curious… two third world nations end up fielding the Su-27! Ethiopia a country made famous when an Irishman organised a pop concert to help feed their population in a famine went from operating a light fighter like the F-5 to operating a large twin engine long range air superiority fighter.

    Hi Fedaykin !

    First of all I did not make that list of the conflicts..someone else did.

    I corrected the P.1078C pic above.

    It is very much possible that no one is interested about plane this small and cheap.

    rgds,

    Juke

    PS: I would not choose anything but this..since this misses only two IR missiles..and able to carry em outside.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2241790
    topspeed
    Participant

    He P1078C and He-162

    Here…before this thread dies last additions.

    P.1078 was jägernotprogram result.

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=857

    http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/hep1078c.html

    It had 1450 liters of fuel…and wing area 17.9 m2.

    ——
    CORRECTIONS DONE !

    in reply to: Boeing's Updated 6th Gen Concept #2241931
    topspeed
    Participant

    I’m not convinced we would be around to talk about pretty pictures of aircraft though….

    Right but had there not been n**is we’d all died long ago in Stalins salt mines.

    in reply to: Boeing's Updated 6th Gen Concept #2242016
    topspeed
    Participant

    The BOP spec is for a cheap, inexpensive test craft, not a military fighter or bomber. The X36 was a scaled test aircraft specificaly to test tailless configuration for future stealth applications (even for fighters) .. That was about 10 years ago , so its not illogical for a company to offer in the 2020 design phase technology that it developed and tested in the 90’s and 2000’s ….

    http://www.jefflewis.net/graphics/aircraft/X-36.jpg

    X36 Video :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbZ2Q6lStJE

    If you want to compare ARTIST RENDITIONS, better to buy yourself old aviation magz from the 80’s and 90’s and compare artist drawings between the various designers …You could use those to compare NAZI designs and charts… If you want to talk about NAZI designs, Historical paper drawings etc better to start a seperate thread, as it seriously derails from the topic at hand both here and in the Bell helo thread..

    Sorry bring_it_on…no nazi stuff no more.

    Splitailerons..I saw them.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,161 through 2,175 (of 2,657 total)