Page 46 – Key Publishing

Y-20 Bacon

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 1,779 total)

← 1 2 3 … 45 46 47 … 117 118 119 →

Author

Posts
January 27, 2016 at 8:52 am in reply to: Indian Navy news thread #2017063

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

In regards to the aircraft choice for the 2nd carrier? what do you guys think?

1. keep buying mig-29K
2. buy Rafale M instead
3. dark horse: F-35B or C

November 11, 2015 at 6:52 am in reply to: MRJ has had first flight. #477806

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

the sun rises again!
already a bigger success than SSJ and ARJ

November 3, 2015 at 2:51 am in reply to: twin boom designs, can they still be useful on fighters? #2160032

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

I knew recalling a 5th gen design that used a twin boom
and now i remember it.. it was general dynamics submission against the yf-22

although they are baby booms similar to the yak

November 2, 2015 at 5:18 am in reply to: "Whatif" that aircraft had those markings thread #2160518

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

israeli J-11

November 2, 2015 at 5:14 am in reply to: twin boom designs, can they still be useful on fighters? #2160522

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

There is nothing prevents such design to be used in a modern fighter. It has its advantages and disadvantages. It actually offers some structural advantages as some weight is placed towards the middle of the wing (and not at the fuselage end), so bending forces are reduced and airframe could be made lighter. Obvious disadvantage is increased skin area per internal volume, leading to increased drag, Depending on design, booms, tails and elevators MAY cause increased interference drag.

Then there are structural problems. You can’t just fit a modern jet engine into a “boom” with reasonable size. Simply putting engines underwing, and using a more conventional tail design is better for most scenarios. Moving weight futher away from CG will reduce roll rate, and moving wing structure’s CG futher aft of aerodynamic center will decrease resistance to flutter.

So today, for most (if not all) cases, twin boom design end-up preferrable only if
a) you want a light, long ranged but slow aircraft, which will not see high speeds so increased drag is not an issue, does not require maneuverability so CG and aeroelasticity problems are not an issue, but lightened structure will provide benefits like increased payload, fuel or reduced wing loading. (Obvious example is Virgin Atlantic Global Flyer, which has flown to a longer distance than any other aircraft)
b) you have dimensional constraints like length/height, or you want an airframe feature that prevents using a conventional design (like the rear entry ramp on Su-80), and you are forced to use twin boom.

Ignoring the someone‘s utterly useless (as usual) post only directed at flamebaiting me…

who’s baiting you?

it sounds like this arrangement is ideal for recon or ground attack.

November 2, 2015 at 5:13 am in reply to: twin boom designs, can they still be useful on fighters? #2160525

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

That thing nearly got produced….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_P.1216

Although the layout is linked to the astovl propulsion rather than a pure aerodynamic choice.

i see many different models of it
one with an f18 style intake, the other with an f16 style intake, which was the one that got chosen?

October 31, 2015 at 1:40 am in reply to: Which was the more successful aviation industry since ww2: British or French aviation #2161256

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

at first British, now French
brits used to have so many designs and companies.. Avro, BAe, HS, etc
France just had Dassault Baguette.
Now an independent British aerospace is almost dead. what remains relies on mergers with italians and what not

October 30, 2015 at 7:40 am in reply to: "Whatif" that aircraft had those markings thread #2161695

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

very nice shop of an egyptian jf-17.
but unlikely to happen since they want top of the line aircraft not 3rd gen stuff

October 30, 2015 at 7:29 am in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread 20 #2161698

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

(:

other than the uneven roundel on the front pak-fa, it looks very nice! I’m sure the native americans will love it!

speaking of americans, do jolly roger next 😀

October 29, 2015 at 3:20 am in reply to: "Whatif" that aircraft had those markings thread #2162406

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

Here goes:

WOW,.. WOW WOW WOW.
You guys are awesome.
This confirms a theory I had..
Everything looks better with the Viggen camouflage! Pak-fa looks awesome. it looks right some how. I saved this one for sure!
great.. I’m very impressed

you should show it to the guys in the pak-fa thread.

October 28, 2015 at 1:54 pm in reply to: Indonesia and Egypt: Pak-fa or J-20/J-31? #2162742

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

indonesia has some potential problems with malaysia which has good flankers. its okay with australia now but should warrant something to match their f-35s and singapores f-35s as well. in that case j-20 might not cut it because of its lack of power and questionable radar technology. pak-fa it is.

egypt depends if saudis will buy it for them. in which case j-31 probably fits them better because russia will not dare anger israel.

October 28, 2015 at 5:51 am in reply to: "Whatif" that aircraft had those markings thread #2162872

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

я русский 🙂 in regards to Vietnam, too expensive i think…
so you like the “jungle” camo, will be more complicated but im down for a challenge 🙂

thank you my friend.
not jungle camo, but a forest splinter camo is what the viggen used

here is a Vietanmese pak-fa for you. but it would be nicer if it was done on a real plane than a drawing

October 28, 2015 at 3:33 am in reply to: Sukhoi vs Mikoyan Gurevich: which was the better design bureau? #2162921

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

I think MiG was just unlucky. Like Su-27, MiG-29 was also built for the demands specifications of Soviet airforce. Its not MiG’s fault that their product was something that had no role after cold war. Othervise MiG did built some great aircraft; MiG-21, MiG-25, MiG-31 are all excellent aircraft, even today.

-MiG-23 is a good aircraft with superb supersonic performance (better than F-15A/16A), and good (better than F-4E, F-5E etc) subsonic maneuverability. Its only disadvantage was complexity, but its performance reflects the engineering capability of MiG company.

-MiG-29 was good for exactly Soviet airforce wanted. For late 1980s, it would have been the best aircraft for WW-III IMO, good trade-off of ruggedness, simplicity, avionics, kinematics and cost. But in last two decades world has changed, and MiG-29 needed much bigger advancements to fit in this new world and be competetive on the market with F-16/18, Rafele or Typhoon; advancements that MiG failed to make in time.

Also, lets not forget Sukhoi designed T-4 Sotka, a truly advanced and unique aircraft for Soviet aerospace industry. Now with PAK-FA, Sukhoi is truly getting the experience MiG won’t have.

indeed, these days its no longer mig vs sukhoi
its IAPO vs KNAPO vs SNAPPLE

October 28, 2015 at 3:32 am in reply to: Sukhoi vs Mikoyan Gurevich: which was the better design bureau? #2162925

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

You compared completely different design competition winners? And there were other competitors. People quickly forget Tupovlev, Yakovlev, Lavochin, etc.

because these were put in service while Tupolev and Yakkie virtually got shut out of tactical aviation and forced to specialize into bombers, transports, and trainers more or less.

October 28, 2015 at 3:24 am in reply to: Typhoon vs. Rafale. #2162929

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

It’s precisely because France isn’t getting the F35 that they have worked so hard at making it much better than Typhoon in the A2G role.

that’s exactly it. lets review

AESA – Rafale did it first because greater political will to get it done. Typhoon still stuck in development limbo because its partner nations are dragging their feet
Meteor – Rafale has it now, Typhoon will get it.
A2A – overall, potentially the Typhoon is better because of higher supercruise and potential capabilities of planned upgrades, but those aren’t here yet other than the supercruise
Carrier – Rafale can do it already
A2G – Rafale has more done to it. Boots on ground wins wars, and A2G helps those boots. A2A is sexy, but A2G is reality. Rafale could simply bomb the Typhoon while its parked. But in reality, its a matter of how Rafale and Typhoons coordinate with other support aircraft and systems that will determine who will win, and in that case, the Typhoons A2A advantage diminishes.
Unit cost – Rafale is cheaper
Operational cost – Rafale is cheaper
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 1,779 total)

← 1 2 3 … 45 46 47 … 117 118 119 →