Page 82 – Key Publishing

topspeed

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,216 through 1,230 (of 2,657 total)

← 1 2 3 … 81 82 83 … 176 177 178 →

Author

Posts
February 7, 2015 at 1:28 pm in reply to: Folland Gnat #907807

topspeed
Participant

It was amazingly small;

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 28 ft 8 in (8.74 m)
Wingspan: 22 ft 1 in (6.73 m)
Height: 8 ft 1 in (2.46 m)
Wing area: 136.6 ft² (12.69 m²)
Empty weight: 4,800 lb (2,175 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 9,040 lb (4,100 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 701-01 turbojet, 4,705 lbf (20.9 kN)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folland_Gnat

February 7, 2015 at 1:18 pm in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2225186

topspeed
Participant

a flying wing vs an a/c with massive control surfaces for agility is an apples to oranges comparison

Well Me-163 Komet was a flying wing and some may say it was agile too. Not sure how stealth it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit

170 000 kg vs 4300 kg gives around 40 times smaller AC.

February 7, 2015 at 9:31 am in reply to: USAF T-X #2225239

topspeed
Participant

Certainly your point about keeping design teams busy is a valid one, but the same point as applies to the Gripen applies even more so to the F-16. The original F-16 only took a few years to go from concept to production back in the 1970s. There is nothing to say that a clean slate design couldn’t do the same thing today, assuming they were willing to avoid bureaucracy and keep the program to the bare essentials.

With modern composites, design tools, etc, beating the F-16 or Gripen’s price/performance balance shouldn’t be hard.

I agree some new computer thinking and 70% more stealth to F-16 would upgrade it par with 5th gen fighters. Doesn’t SAAB/Gripen already have plans for more stealthy Gripen ?

February 7, 2015 at 9:25 am in reply to: Proposed Wind Farm ar Bullington Cross #384149

topspeed
Participant

The wind farms are really horrendous.

I wonder how come engineers never came up with a more clever system than the primitive ” Ol Dutch Wind Mill ” kinda redevelopement to harness the wind ?

February 7, 2015 at 8:31 am in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2225245

topspeed
Participant

I can’t tell you how many times I looked at your designs here and thought, topspeed is crazy, or blind, or both. Or pulling our leg, and having waay too much fun on the computer. Than look at it again and see a really interesting bird. More interesting than crazy.
I doubt propeller craft can ever go over the speed of sound even with rocket boosters, and I doubt that Mini Kite could ever even take off with 5 Aim-120 missiles plus 12 bombs. Or that that AESA radar and necessary avionics /cockpit instrumentation can actually fit in the front/nose.
On the other hand, I have to admit I love the design, and without some of above exaggerations, and with some increase in actual potential, it would be an amazing small fighter.
I would love to see it fly.

Thanks yet again Wanderlei !

There are still few details in this that are not 100% studied…landing gear is one and the other is the rocket propulsion system. I tought the 2 x 450 hp engines could produce enough turbocharged compression to run he rockets liquid propellants, but I was informed they are useless for it. See I am only a part time DIY engineer and cannot solve rocketry related problems. Also this consumes way too much time that I need elsewhere.

We know for sure that prop plane could fly at 600-670 mph speeds from several sources…even at 0.47 hp/kg power to weight ratio ( 10 % less than Me-109K doing 350 km/h slower ) like XF-84H !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51BEbZlps80

You cannot question the efficiency of the propeller power system either cause it has worked already 112 years…longer than any propulsion system so far in aviation; http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Engines_&_Props/1903_Engine.htm

No propeller plane that actually flew above Mach 0.8 had the rocket propulsion available so we really cannot know how well a prop will perform when it gets above the M1 speeds..if it is feathered will it slow it down or could it keep rotating with a reduction gear running with ultra high rpms ??

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235165[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]235165[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]235165[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]235165[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]235165[/ATTACH]

The charm in my designs might lie in the fact that I try keep the BS absolute minimum and bring the forgotten really efficient layouts alive with factually lite and strong materials ( with amazingly low RCS figure too ) possibly mixing historically solid theories with newer aerodynamics as well.

So almost none of this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6nwzJL-scE

These look cool too !

February 7, 2015 at 8:09 am in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2225264

topspeed
Participant

At least in the case of the T-50, J-20, and F-22, the control surface size difference between them aren’t big enough to be the primary driver of difference in RCS. It’s primarily geometry and RAM.

topspeed, you should do more reading on EM radiation before making such claims. Shaping is the predominant driver of RCS, followed by RAM. Smaller size can actually magnify RCS depending on radar wavelength.

I agree to this…B2 is bigger than F-22 and RCS may be smaller. Then again if the B2 stealth was smaller it would have a smaller RCS, but it couldn’t carry a massive bomb load.

February 6, 2015 at 9:21 pm in reply to: Taiwan plane crash #484725

topspeed
Participant

That is so sad.

February 6, 2015 at 8:41 pm in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2225416

topspeed
Participant

And does this have any meaning ??? You are truly obsessed by having anything as small as possible !?

Deino

Yes smaller rudders deflect less radar waves than bigger ones….the main aspects in stealth ( technology ) are very simple…size, form and material. There is nothing to it…okay some electrical gadgets can also be used to fool radar.

Problem in making small is that you have to have huge amount of weapons to be carried….which makes it an art to make it small. Are you challenging me into some sort a mud wrestling compeptition Deino…like at the secret projects site a year or two ago ?

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_cross-section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar-absorbent_material

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasure

February 6, 2015 at 7:41 pm in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2225447

topspeed
Participant

The end product has 1400 kg/m3 density…even with the german Panzer Holz.

We call this stuff Jukemold.

February 6, 2015 at 7:35 pm in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2225450

topspeed
Participant

You can’t estimate RAM though and I did hear somewhere that the T-50 focuses more on RAM than geometry.

Are you saying the RAM is lower than in F-22 possibly ?

T-50 has smaller rudders….I give you that.

February 5, 2015 at 8:26 pm in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2225818

topspeed
Participant

Super stealth pie cooking here.

10% more dense than Kevlar.

38% lighter than carbon fibre.

February 5, 2015 at 8:23 pm in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2225827

topspeed
Participant

Just two planes, T-50 is clearly much sleeker and will have lower drag. F-22 use abfterburner a lot in airshows.

But F-22 does have more power to avail…and is also supercruise craft…with lotsa less angles…and thus lower RCS figure.

February 1, 2015 at 5:56 pm in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2227022

topspeed
Participant

I counted that this craft could actually lift easily 6000-6500 kg weight and thus 3500-4000 kg ordnance.

Is it still too little for real life combat ac ?

I am aiming somewhere 60% of this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

Hard to understand this grew this big….at 230 km/h speed it can weigh 11 000 kg.

February 1, 2015 at 4:39 pm in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2227051

topspeed
Participant

I think you miss the point. I said ‘retrofit’. There were large stocks of Skyflash, Aspide & Sparrow missiles. It might have been possible to upgrade them for considerably less than the cost of buying AIM-120, & such an upgrade might have been available earlier. Not an alternative to AIM-120, but a supplement.

Is Gripen able to carry JASSM ?

Weight vise it could; In flight, the Gripen is typically capable of carrying up to 14,330 lb (6.50 t) of assorted armaments and equipment

February 1, 2015 at 3:54 pm in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2227066

topspeed
Participant

the think-tanks in the video you linked claim it was

I notissed it. I recall somewhere a document ( vid ) claiming F-35 needs F-22 for air cover..is this false ?

This says 20 degs / second for sustained turn rate; http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/jas39.htm

What is for F-35 ?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,216 through 1,230 (of 2,657 total)

← 1 2 3 … 81 82 83 … 176 177 178 →