dark light

benhongh

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 146 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • benhongh
    Participant

    All the high performance fleet defenders had some sort of high lift device. F-8 had adjustable wings, F-4 had boundary layer control, F-14 had swing wings. F-18 and F-35 have nothing and consequently their supersonic performance is poor. A fixed wing F-14 would have required some other high lift device, as the book says. Either that or give up on state of the art kinematics and go the F-18E/F route.

    While I agree that ship-borne aircrafts generally feature some sort of high lift devices, not all of them carry the same level of weight/cost penalty as the swing wing. Look at Rafale-M, which almost exclusively relies on its low wing loading to achieve low speed performance.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2135622
    benhongh
    Participant

    Fresh MiG-31BSM.

    http://russianplanes.net/images/to198000/197493.jpg
    http://russianplanes.net/id197493

    That looks absolutely gorgeous. Can anyone advise me how far is the MiG-31BSM differ from the original MiG-31M (circa 1995ish)? Is there any plan for new built airframes apart from the upgrades? I haven’t been update with the mig front these days Sukhoi seems to be all the rage…

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2138295
    benhongh
    Participant

    you aren’t seriously suggesting that the Knights ONLY do display formation!?

    I think half of them are Instructors in VKS.

    Couldn’t the same be said for other air forces? I mean all those hours spent on formation flying on the airframe do incur a hefty cost. That’s why the blues still flies A model hornets. Couldn’t the knights pick a more economical choice? Like the Yak-130?

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2138934
    benhongh
    Participant

    Russian Knights got a Su-30SM!

    https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8652/29114825053_6d179832c0_o.jpg

    Isn’t that a waste of resource to use a state of the art fighter for aerobatic display? It’s like the USAF using the F-22s for its Thunderbirds.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2189238
    benhongh
    Participant

    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/26352/219158890.16/0_13ffed_973bf0c1_orig

    I’m sure this has been discussed before but does anyone know what’s in that stinger-tail? Anti-spin chute?

    Great pic of T-50 by the way.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2219202
    benhongh
    Participant

    Thanks Deino.

    I know it is comprehensively different (glass cockpit, composites, new engines… etc) but it really is amazing testimony to the soundness of Tupolevs basic design, which also first flew in the same month as the first B-52 prototype, all the way back in 1952.

    This must be some type of record for a military aircraft, surely.

    When you need a new bomber but you can’t (or don’t want to) design a new airframe for it, you’ll just have to make do I think. Nothing spectacular to speak of…

    in reply to: should USAF stuck to F-14 over the F-15? #2221847
    benhongh
    Participant

    What is that?

    Its not the recessed Phoenix launcher… what is it? I didn’t think F-14s got FAST packs…?

    They where Phoenix launch rails that double as external fuel tanks. I don’t think they were every built though.

    in reply to: Does external payload create lift ? #2221849
    benhongh
    Participant

    Am I heretic or just misimformed since I think I may have misunderstood a fighterpilot telling me an empty fueltank ( external ) can actually create some lift.

    How about other ordnance. Does speed affect to it ? I mean missiles actually fly pretty long time by themselves ?

    They do. The bigger the item the more lift it can potentially create. But then they also create (a lot of) drag, changes the static margin, affects the lifting capability of the airframe, creates vibration/flutter, etc etc. The net effective is most likely to going to be detrimental aerodynamically. That’s why everyone is crazy going for conformal fuel tanks and internal weapons bays these days.

    in reply to: F-16C Block52+ visa F-22A Raptor #2224672
    benhongh
    Participant

    My new acrylic painting. Exercise Red Flag, Alaska 2012. Best regards, Piotr Dubowik http://www.sztukaitechnika.pl/blog/60,red-flag-alaska.html
    http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c259/sztukaitechnika/D8_zps8ntlf0b8.jpg

    Impressive work! You’ve captured the menacing shape of the viper nicely. Interesting that the F-16 is on mil power while the F-22 in full afterburner, in a presumably a rolling scissors fight.

    in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2258453
    benhongh
    Participant

    Hi All,
    Blackbird :love-struck:
    http://www.likehdwallpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/Military/FTP1/1280x800/SR-71%20Blackbird%20Wallpapers%201280x800.jpg

    Geoff.

    WOW! Just wow! What an absolutely menacing look of fury. This thing looks ALIVE!

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 13 #2262904
    benhongh
    Participant

    For those who can’t stop bitching about surface details, I present to you…

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]233160[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Shenyang J-21/31/F-60/AMF thread part 1 #2262910
    benhongh
    Participant

    When an Aileron is designed to act has a flap as well, the terminology is to call it a “Flaperon“.

    When the aileron act as an elevator surface as well such as on a Delta Wing design, the terminology is to call it an “Elevon

    Can we call it flalevon for TE control surfaces on X-32? You know, it’s a flap, an aileron, and an elevator all in one…

    benhongh
    Participant

    This is certainly not a good week for aviation. One fatality and one injury. R.I.P.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/us-space-crash-virgin-idUSKBN0IK24220141031

    This is a really sad news. R.I.P. Michael Alsbury.

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 13 #2218674
    benhongh
    Participant

    I hate that Su-34 light blue mix 🙁 .

    If they had to get rid of the black Hellduck scheme, I would rather see the Su-35s original light grey/blue.

    Meh, the black scheme looks too…aubergine. The cyan/aqua look is at least aesthetically pleasing…but to one his own I guess

    in reply to: 'UFO' video, is this real? #2219896
    benhongh
    Participant

    This has been doing the rounds today:

    http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5286120/

    Now clearly a drone, I was wondering is it actually an X47 in the hover? And what weaponry is being used? There’s light flashes and then the explosions.

    The whole thing looks more like a test to me than an actual combat strike but I could be wrong.

    Normally you would expect a delay for the sound after the visible explosion. I guess they also had advanced tech to make sound travel at the speed of light. :rolleyes:

    I mean come on…(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELe52UcZJb4)

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 146 total)