dark light

topspeed

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 886 through 900 (of 2,657 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: So what's the next big thing #857449
    topspeed
    Participant

    I think anything connected to WWII Luftwaffe aircraft, are simply put “exotic”, to say the least.
    Luckily I have seen in the air “black six” also the 109E when she was here in Canada, & at Hamilton the 190 & 262.
    But imagine being at an airshow & hearing this. ????????????

    I would be first in the que.

    I personally hate the sirens.

    in reply to: So what's the next big thing #857810
    topspeed
    Participant

    We could try the SR powerplant?

    Yes..for better performance.

    in reply to: So what's the next big thing #857832
    topspeed
    Participant

    Hmm, I can just see the CAA granting permission to build a rocket interceptor with highly volatile fuel xD

    Brits had invented a rocket engine ( interceptor ) that was safe, but F-104 got their german deal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.177

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Spectre

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.53

    He-162 was more unsafe.

    My avatar is a rocket-jet hybrid ship.

    in reply to: So what's the next big thing #857850
    topspeed
    Participant

    If we could get the B17s over and a couple of 109s with the 2 buchons and even a 262, we could do a whole American bomber raid scenario!

    I think what you really need is a rocket powered ME-163. 😎

    Few Heinkels and a DB powered 109.

    in reply to: So what's the next big thing #858015
    topspeed
    Participant

    DhComet and Fokker DXXI…or a flying Gloster Meteor !

    topspeed
    Participant

    This is a very sad incident my condolences to the pilots family and friends. Fortunately incidents like this these days are so rare when you think of the number of commercial airliners flying around the world. There is though the argument of having two pilots in the cockpit, true that computers fly aeroplanes they can take off and land themselves anywhere in the world, all it needs is a human to guide it from the terminal to the runway.
    But and its a big but, technology can go wrong just as humans can, so there is always a back up. In my mind the idea of cutting cost’s by having one pilot in the cockpit is going over the top its unthinkable. Technology and pilots very rarely but sometimes do go wrong, what about mother nature she can also throw surprises and challenges into the equation in most cases would take a human to deal with this situation.

    Would you feel comfortable going on a long haul flight say in an A380 with one ore even no pilot in the cockpit?

    250 flying hours in MS FSX might help too….if someone in the passenger tube has it.

    in reply to: test pilot: "F-35 can't dogfight" #2171932
    topspeed
    Participant

    Could you please explain these details in percentages, some posters here would find that more credible..

    I am just wondering if the MS FSX is even at the right ball park.

    Mig_21_F 0.7 hr
    F-22 0.4 hr
    J-35 0.9 hr
    Starship1.1 hr
    F-35 1 hr
    Typhoon 0.6 hr
    A-10 1 hr
    F-104 0.4 hr

    Able to fly 0,6 hr with Typhoon when just 13% fuel remaining.

    in reply to: test pilot: "F-35 can't dogfight" #2172040
    topspeed
    Participant

    no problem, time will tell

    I am glad that F-35 is only marginally slower when flying from Ugolny ( Russia ) to Nome ( Alaska ) than a Saab J-35 Draken according to Microsoft FSX. :highly_amused:

    X-15 is 4 times faster than A-10 and F-35. :angel:

    Ta-152C is 15 minutes slower.

    F-104 and F-22 are the fastest jets…not even a Mig-21 can beat them ( though I haven’t tried Mig-31 ).

    in reply to: The truth about the F-22 #2177203
    topspeed
    Participant

    That’s completely irrelevant. Fighter jets just don’t need to computer power of an iPhone. A fighter jet’s CPU doesn’t need to generate 3D graphics, nor play music, nor any of the trivial but computer intensive crap phones do nowadays.

    Buy a SONY ( xperia ) phone…seems to work just fine…and they haven’t violated thousands of patents like the few other brands have.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2177537
    topspeed
    Participant

    http://i.imgur.com/aI3zaux.png

    what if, the Canards were designed in a configuration similar to the Rafale (close coupled), how would the Typhoons performance change?

    Yes it could no longer dogfight.

    in reply to: The truth about the F-22 #2178351
    topspeed
    Participant

    It could be the xp-77 “mighty mouse” ?

    Stealth, cheap…and high landing speed.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2178362
    topspeed
    Participant
    in reply to: Rockwell-MBB X-31 #2178839
    topspeed
    Participant

    First paper canard jet was P.1110…or was it ?

    http://www.luft46.com/mess/meente.html

    in reply to: Rockwell-MBB X-31 #2179537
    topspeed
    Participant

    I think it’s maybe the Griffon (first fly 20 September 1955).

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]240665[/ATTACH]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_1500_Griffon

    Okay thanks alot.

    in reply to: Rockwell-MBB X-31 #2179853
    topspeed
    Participant

    MiG Ye-8 perhaps if you disregard the elevators.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]240646[/ATTACH]

    Okay I rephrase it to pure canard set up with delta wing.

Viewing 15 posts - 886 through 900 (of 2,657 total)