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.
We could try the SR powerplant?
Yes..for better performance.
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.
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.
DhComet and Fokker DXXI…or a flying Gloster Meteor !
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.
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.
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 ).
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.
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.
It could be the xp-77 “mighty mouse” ?
Stealth, cheap…and high landing speed.
First paper canard jet was P.1110…or was it ?
I think it’s maybe the Griffon (first fly 20 September 1955).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]240665[/ATTACH]
Okay thanks alot.
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.