dark light

topspeed

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,396 through 1,410 (of 2,657 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217118
    topspeed
    Participant

    Do you like to embarrass yourself with such foolish statements.

    It is a lot of fuel I have to admit…in the Shell Ecomarathon the cars drive 4000 + km ( longer than LA-NYC ) distance with just one litre of fuel ( 1/4 gallon ). In a fully laden Airbus A-380 the passenger uses just 3.5 liter / 100 km..this small fighter uses 10 L/ 100 km…ie nearly 3 times that much to move just one person almost half the speed.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2217207
    topspeed
    Participant

    Is the Flanker frontal area with its MLG or not? just askin..

    Clean without external harpoint attachments.

    But cross section is a different matter..more like a AREA RULE thing.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217208
    topspeed
    Participant

    This SUPA PONY flies New York- Los Angeles non stop at 345 mph ( 7 hrs ) burning 100 gallons of fuel. Then can still fly another 1000 miles with a reserve. Flying at 400 mph would burn 50% more fuel.

    Slightly faster than HH-1; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-1_Racer

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2217244
    topspeed
    Participant

    Why? Its cross-section is visibly bigger than Su-27’s as well

    (Numbers are rounded up for cosmetic purposes, I used officially given figures for both planes).
    This is the price you pay for having your weapons inside.

    SU-27 is much bigger in cross section/frontal area than F-22. Flaker competes with YF-23.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217268
    topspeed
    Participant

    http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/187747.jpg

    For a truly high speed prop plane that has a range more than a few hundred miles, small simply is an impossibility.

    …and you post a pic of transcontinental HH-1 Racer in the same comment !?

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217295
    topspeed
    Participant

    Economical in which way? Definitely not when it comes to fuel or maintenance costs.

    This SUPA PONY would cost 100 usd an hour to operate.

    It could when enhanced fly short burst faster than the ME 262; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

    About 80 km/ h faster. :applause:

    RpR might enjoy this too; http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/Notes/stability.pdf

    Study of Busemann actually lead to swept wing fighters already in the thirdies…a transsonic foil might help with 10% thickness too.

    More to read; my.fit.edu/~dkirk/3241/Lectures/TAFT

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217364
    topspeed
    Participant

    If you doubt my calculator…here is what STC gives for speed when the known variables are set in the calculator for the known BD-5 record setter. It has 3 in more pitch than a regular prop and voila..it is 218 mph as record stood with known 74 hp.

    You can also monitor what the thrust is at sea level for BD-5.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217374
    topspeed
    Participant

    You are trolling again.

    I am merely trying to made everyone see what we left behind when we went to fly mach 2+ and forgot the prop aviation altogether….in this instance. No one in the industry would have the guts to come up with these.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217377
    topspeed
    Participant

    RpR and Falcon Dude ( and everyone reading ) !

    How about just 610 mph top speed..well below the speed of sound also for the prop.

    That would be good to do policing ?

    Different thrust settings.

    At 15 KM the thrust is small..but so is the drag.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217550
    topspeed
    Participant

    To put an end to this quest, no, a prop driven plane no matter how powerful it was, would not be able to sustain supersonic flight. The aerodynamic problems associated with the exposed prop are enormous and would pretty much rattle the contraption to pieces.

    A friendly advice. You are obsessed with ratios. That’s not where the secret lies in the cases you are focusing on.

    Ratio is one thing for sure.

    I agree the snaketurn in XF-84H did not sound too good.

    I wonder if the foward sweep is the cure…Heinkel tried that on his last piston design.

    http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/hep1076.html

    Thunderscreech was like the Folland Gnat in jet age early days.

    To me there is something horrifyingly wrong in the YF84..the prop is too small and it is too forward.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217616
    topspeed
    Participant

    [QUOTE=RpR;2139183]

    A. It was unbearable to the ground crew, pilot is protected by the aeroplane hull
    The Pilot could hear it good and well.
    Have you ever been up in a prop. plane?

    It would seem not.
    The sonic boom from the propeller could be heard 25 miles away, and ground crew wearing more protection than the pilot became sick.

    One More Bit of Aviation History

    The XF-84H Thunderscreech likely set a radar reflection record as well, though to our knowledge, nobody was checking. Radar, as every stealth engineer can attest, reflects off of all surfaces to some degree (some surfaces more than others) and reflects best off of panels that angled 90 degrees to each other (thus giving rise to flying wings, faceted surfaces, in-canted paired vertical stabilizers and the other various shapes one sees in the stealth world). However, radar also reflects off of sonic boom shock waves. That is why until recently stealth aircraft were subsonic — the reflection off of a sonic shock wave looms large on a radar scope for all to see. As many air-to-air missiles are radar guided, by the 1960s, this was already a very important issue. The XF-84H Thunderstreak most likely would have shown on a radar scope as something bigger than a battleship flying along at subsonic speeds, making it an easy target. In retrospect, the Thunderscreech seems to have been a bad project no matter which way you look at it.

    You may now return to your trolling.

    It would be very polite to provide source for this insert. So super sonic aeroplane is size of a battle ship in radar…was F-22 RCS measured while it was stationary ?

    Ok…I found it myself; http://fly.historicwings.com/2012/07/thunderscreech/

    It is all speculative opinion of the author of the story….no fact to base it upon.

    Anyway I agree…a plane with P-51H standard version power to weight ratio going 670 mph…must have been a lame presentation…anyway you look at it….or was it ?

    Also it was super sonic in a dive..unlike any other propeller driven AC.

    in reply to: Fancy a P-51 H of 5000 £ and 28 kts stall speed ? #387672
    topspeed
    Participant

    At 19.6″ that’s not the sort of cockpit width conducive to spending long periods in it. The Bf 109 cockpit was cramped at the shoulders for me as a skinny 15 yo schoolboy so 2″ off that is going to be very cramped.

    It is wider at lower portion of the cockpit…where the hands and feet work.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217665
    topspeed
    Participant

    A: the sound it made was unbearable to the pilot.

    B: No not all racers at Reno used straight wing.

    A. It was unbearable to the ground crew, pilot is protected by the aeroplane hull.
    B. This is correct..Vendetta/MissAshleyII Mustangs ( Learstang ) used Lear jet wing/elevator combo.

    Lear Jet; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_24

    Wing is similar sized as in a stock Mustang. NACA 64A109 as a foil ( symmetrical ).

    http://www.pdas.com/refs/tnd6573.pdf

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217678
    topspeed
    Participant

    No you do not or you would not have made such a post.

    You are trolling again.

    Whether it is a piston engine or a turbine factors of engine efficiency, heat control, prop speed and fuel consumption make your idea silly to the point of being moronic.

    A reciprocating BD 5 has a range of 720 miles; a jet version 300 miles.
    Top speed recip. 200 mph; jet 300 mph.
    Service ceiling 12,000 ft; jet 23,000 ft.
    Rate of climb 1,900 fpm; jet 4,000 fpm.

    Racing aircraft at Reno are heavily worked on to minimize air drag, drop weight and have engines putting out over 3,500 horsepower yet only a very few can exceed 500 mph.
    At altitude they might ad another 20 or 30 mph to that speed but engine life would be measured in tens of hours, not hundreds and fuel cost in five figure numerals not four.

    You are embarrassing yourself with you lack of basic knowledge.

    So how come XF-84 went 670 mph then ?

    All racers in RENO are made to go clearly under the speed of sound with straight thick wings.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2217780
    topspeed
    Participant

    This would be an awesome sound; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItexQxJS9U

    Longer video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFhSzReWTgs

    ½ hour document; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRaBZGhaUng

    More; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns5LJHeAd4g

    One has to remember no one in 1950ies wanted to really fly prop planes any longer.

    XF-84H had lesser power to weight ratio ( 0.475 hp/kg ) than a P-51H; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H

    I also have an e-mail conversation with the test pilot who flew XF-84H…saying he did fly the kite super sonic…period !

Viewing 15 posts - 1,396 through 1,410 (of 2,657 total)