No … the one on the left is the above mentioned single-engine version and the one the right is an early model of the HAL LCA Tejas !

I’m sure he knows that. He opened up a thread trying to establish a link between the 2 based purely on the fact that they both had a delta wing.;)

The fact that they are different sizes, and have a different configuration in many aspects doesn’t seem to come into it for some reason.
From figures I’ve seen, the initial single engined Carver would have been roughly between 20-25% longer than Tejas, have had about a meter wider wingspan, a different wing sweep angle, and also have 20-25% heavier max take off weight.
The initial single engined version was sized in the Mirage 2000 and F-16 category, or a little bit larger than Tejas or the Ching Kuo, before the design was moved onto a larger twin engined aircraft.

Some news on this project.
So far, the only official depiction we have had of the Carver over the last 2 decades has been the picture of the model of initial single-engined version that had been put on display all those years ago. Here it is below again for reference. This model was displayed at an arms show in Chile I think in 1988/1989 if I have my dates correct, and either it or a similar model was also displayed at an arms exhibition in South Africa.

Tidbits about the programme indicated that after a lot of work had been done on this initial single-engined version, that the programme then moved toward a larger, twin engined aircraft. The reason for this seems to have been the fact that Carver was intended to replace not just the Mirages, but also the Canberra and Buccaneer in the long range strike role, and probably with a nuclear role to boot.
This last week has seen the Rand Easter Show being staged in Johannesburg, and Denel, had a small stand there. Atlas Aircraft, as well as other defence companies, were incorporated under the Denel umbrella years ago.

At their stand was this model below.
It is only the second instance in all these years of anything related to Carver being officially displayed, after the initial single-engined variant all those years ago, apart from that intriguing photo of the Carver design team posing before that airframe frame jig that was published.
It shows one of the follow on twin-engined developments that replaced the single engined variant. This one has a single vertical fin, and there has been info put out that there was also a configuration studied with two vertical fins.
It seems the fellow who took the photos asked the representatives at the stand for more info, but none was forthcoming. This model looks like a display model that was supported on a stand that was attached via the engine nozzles.

Uhhh yes. It is obvious you did not visit there during the years prior to 2010-2009 if you think otherwise. That, or you prefer enthusiast opinions of aircraft over aircrew talking about their aircraft and experience. But, to each his own. I’m not defending the current iteration of the site, and this is significantly OT.

The only obvious thing is that you are wrong. Can you hear yourself? You’re trying to tell me where and when I went on the internet, FFS.:rolleyes:
The irony of you saying this and saying F-16.net was this utopia is hilarious and comedy gold. The irony can’t possibly be lost on you, surely.

If you weren’t American, or worshipped at the altar of an American aircraft, it was excruciating, and a complete waste of time. Like I said, very centric. It’s been a byword for that for years and years. This is not to bash it for what it is, or an “anti-American” bash…it is what it is, the site did and does exactly what it says on the tin.
There is a very big world out there, and not everyone is American.

My last OT post.

I remember when the first j-20 images came out, all the Russian fanboys were screaming “no bays”
years later

You joined only slightly over a year ago. So why are you concerned about something that happened “years ago” when you weren’t here?
Wouldn’t it be better for you, and everybody who has to read your posts, to divert the efforts you put into inflammatory posting into accuracy rather?

I give up.

Berkut and Scar, why are you guys getting so upset???
Nobody here has posted anything like that on this thread, yet you’re getting all angry about what people post on other forums?:confused:
Berkut, you were the person who first posted the claim, and as far as I can see on this thread, nobody has said they believe it to be official, so venting off that it comes from a silly source isn’t actually dealing with anything said by anybody in this thread.

Back to T-50;

https://www.facebook.com/airforceswordsofsky/?fref=nf

I don’t have FB but if anyone in here does, and can be bothered, message them and ask for their source. I am personally calling BS on it. It is almost twice as fast as P-42’s *average* climbrate which was ~216m/s.

People here are simply talking about previous attempts or other aircraft that were noted for their high peak climb rate. And whether a climb rate peaking above Mach 1 is possible or been achieved before, which it has. That is all. This is an aviation discussion forum after all, and because of the discussion, I’ve even got to see some of Kens wonderful pics of P-42. Nobody here has even claimed that exact stated climb rate is from an official source.
You guys will give yourselves a heartattack if you carry on getting angry about what people on other unrelated forums say.:dev2:

In his defense, that is a pretty accurate description MSphere’s posts in general…

Claptrap.
The irony is that it sounds like your posts rather.
At one stage i actually thought you were paid to mention the word “F-35”, as you mentioned it in almost every post of yours, regardless of the thread topic. It rendered multiple topics unreadable.
Sphere is far better than that.