dark light

Bug Lover

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 124 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: YAK-141A SUPERSONIC VSTOL #2589834
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    Other than the main engine rotation, which Lockheed admits, was heavily influenced by the YAK-141 :). The McDonnell Douglas entry was functionally closer to the YAK. Since the 143 was never built and the drawings of it was said to appear AFTER the JAST program. So they probably influenced each other….again. 😀

    in reply to: YAK-141A SUPERSONIC VSTOL #2591284
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    That is correct. The Lockheed…”Hat Trick” as it was called was simply a stunt. The JSF program did not have a requirement to take off vertically and go MACH, it was more concerned with STO portion. The X-32 did fly at supersonic speed in the STO configuration. That was one of the program requirements.

    The Yak-141 is the better looking of the 3 aircraft, IMO.

    are you sure this is correct?. the reason the locmartain JSF was chosen because it didn’t cause a sparks whlie vertical landing notorious with with VTOL jet liked super harriaes and yak-38.didn’t the “boeing monica big mouthV/STOL” achives supersoinic flight?.

    in reply to: Super Hornet "kills" Raptor #2595889
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    We don’t know a lot of things. We don’t know if it is an actual snap shot, we don’t know the ROE, and we despite what some people think, we don’t fully know the capabilities and or inabilities of these aircraft.

    With that said :D. The HUD flight data of the F/A-18 matches the HUD of the Super Hornet Malaysian Demo….meaning that this aircraft is probably operating in its envelope…a knife fight or airshow demo/practise 🙂

    I think I read a something that like, “a fighter pilot tries to make his opponent fight the fight that his aircraft is the best at..” or something like that.

    As far as the discussion of the “pilots” on the other forum…..how do we even know that they are really combat pilots? 😉

    A lot of unknowns here 🙂

    in reply to: F-18 E/F performance report #2601142
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    Also, the Hornet has now been cleared to carry the larger external tanks of the Super Hornet. Thereby giving the two the same range! Further, the Hornet can carry the same radar and AAM’s. The older Hornet currently has better acceleration and higher top speed. The only area that the Super Hornet has over the older Hornet. Is its bring back payload……………Which, personally I don’t see worth its many trade offs. 🙁

    Huh?
    Lets see, the legacy Hornet carries about 10900lbs internally and the Super carries 14700 lbs. Strap-on one or two tanks and the Super still has more fuel.

    Oh yeah, we may want to place a couple of weapons on it, so the max TO for the legacy is about 56000 lbs and the Super is about 66000 lbs. While I’m sure that the pylon boo boo decreased the range I don’t think it is a 3800 lbs worth. 😀
    Disclaimer: fuel capacities were pulled off the net and/or mags.

    in reply to: McDonnell Douglas Carrier birds #230137
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    Thanks Bert!

    Yes, very scary. That was the first time I did a full stick deflection at low speed and high AOA. I tried to correct the model but I only made the wing rock worse. The next time I didn’t do anything and recovering was quick.

    in reply to: F-18 E/F performance report #2601459
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    I guess you guys haven’t read a GAO report before. They seem play the devil’s advocate in all programs. Do a search for yourself, pick a program any program.:D

    I like the Super Hornet, it does have its short comings but so does other programs.

    in reply to: McDonnell Douglas Carrier birds #230463
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    Here is a video of the Banshee flying.

    http://www.kcox.rchomepage.com/videos/F2H-2%20Banshee.wmv

    in reply to: McDonnell Douglas Carrier birds #230572
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    The F/A-18 flies for about 5.5 to 6 minutes at full throttle (about 110 mph), at lower throttle 7.5+ minutes are possible.

    The X-32 project has been done flown, crashed, repaired, flown again..etc. 😀
    This was maybe 3 years ago are longer.

    Thanks for the interest.

    in reply to: McDonnell Douglas Carrier birds #230585
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    Thanks guys,

    Shaggy,
    I usually start off by buying a 1/48 or 1/72 plastic model kit of the subject I plan to build. I also have lot of reference material but I’m really just verifying the plastic model with 3 view drawings. I can then start to determine the center of gravity and later the placement of radio equipment, batteries and propulsion unit(s). Based on the planned flying weight and speed the wing airfoil is selected and the bulkhead/formers are placed on the plan.

    Both models are a mixture of balsa wood, foam, plywood and cardboard.

    I’m usually lucky enough that I can take a 3 view drawing to a local copier store and enlarge it to size I need the model to be. Some models that I have done I need to draw the entire model since no accurate 3 views or models were available. The Boeing X-32 was just such a project.

    The F/A-18E took about 2 years of on and off building. The biggest problem encountered had to be the main landing gear. The full scale Hornet uses a sort of trailing link/ knuckle strut. I simply had to have this for my model since it looks strange with a straight strut, IMO. Since the model is powered by two fans the main gear also had to rotate to fit in the small space. I modified a toggle bolt and used a readily available retractable gear unit designed for a F4U Corsair model. I’ve had the gear collapse lots of times but I still think it was worth it.

    Cost? Cheaper that a turbine that is for sure but not too cheap :D.
    Not counting the airframe and radio, which is cheap, but the man-hours aren’t. I would guess about 850.00 USD for the fans, motors, controllers, batteries and retracts.

    in reply to: McDonnell Douglas Carrier birds #230602
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    My pleasure 😀

    It is about 14MB in size.

    http://www.kcox.rchomepage.com/videos/Rhino.wmv

    in reply to: McDonnell Douglas Carrier birds #230607
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    Thanks!

    Taylorman, they are my own design……anyone interested in a video of the Super Hornet?

    in reply to: McDonnell Douglas Carrier birds #230846
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    Landing shot and Banshee under construction.

    in reply to: F/A18-A/C whats the difference? #2617309
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    “C” has X band RAM paint and other RCS reduction modifications not found in the “A”.

    Are you sure you didn’t get the “C” mixed up with the “E/F”?

    in reply to: F/A18-A/C whats the difference? #2617324
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    The main distinctive feature are IFF bumps behind the canopy (F-18C) as well as small LERX fences, but these were latter retrofitted on some As and skipped with some early Cs, so it is hard to tell.

    The bumps behind the canopy are, I believe, AN/ALQ-165 jammers (self protection). The fences are probably on ALL legacy Hornets otherwise the verticals fins would be off the aircraft by now. 😀

    in reply to: Top Cover #2617393
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    ???

    A Delilah wannabe?

    You mean this? If so how could you make such a statement?

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 124 total)