dark light

obligatory

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 6,596 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2138824
    obligatory
    Participant

    It is also depend on specific mission
    https://i.imgur.com/jMDocjY.png

    above all it depends on if there is external fuel tanks included in the estimate, like the above pic does,
    but dont expect f-35 to make it above 650 nm combat radius on any mission without external fuel tanks and/or refuelling,
    and dont expect f-35 to make 800 nm with fuel tanks either

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2138980
    obligatory
    Participant

    from what i understand it was a choice between CFT vs redesigning land gear to boost range,
    the latter was decided on, when it became clear how much it could accomplish

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2139074
    obligatory
    Participant

    There’s so much stupidity in it, but here’s one that stuck out a lot:

    Over 700 nm combat radius on internal fuel but it has less range than an F-16! And of course they always talk about the F-35’s “limited range” and “limited payload” but I have yet to see a plane with “unlimited range” or “unlimited payload”.

    (I should also mention that the link it uses as a citation for this claim doesn’t even talk about the F-35’s range, other than that they accepted a range reduction in 2012 during the program restructure.)

    err, no, combat range on internal fuel is around 600 nm

    in reply to: Future of Belgian Air Component #2139638
    obligatory
    Participant

    strategic targets isnt going to be attacked with free fall nukes,
    and i cant for the life of me see NL dropping free fall nukes on brigades either,
    i think its a non issue.

    the most challenging task is timely interception,
    even the better interceptors will be hard pressed, trainers isnt going to cut it

    in reply to: Different missiles for increased PK #1785663
    obligatory
    Participant

    russia picked up on it, but its the different seeker you want,
    its better if both are equally fast so the timing of intercept can be consistent

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2141537
    obligatory
    Participant

    given the very modest difference in purchase & operational cost between gripen C and E,
    i for one can not justify opting for C.
    since their EF cant be sold, there must be a reason i’m not aware of to fork up the dough
    for another fighter until their T1 is worn out

    in reply to: ECM pod can reduce RCS? #2141553
    obligatory
    Participant

    …Colonel Michael W. Pietrucha…the former EW (Beeps and Squeaks) instructor added…terminate the air force’s participation in the F-35 programme…

    He is arguing that soldiers should continue practicing their sword fighting skills in case that gunpowder thing doesn’t pan out. :highly_amused:

    he is arguing that f-35 level stealth & speed is pike and shot era,
    an arquebus gun that merely complement good ole pikes

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2141787
    obligatory
    Participant

    i currently stay in a 3rd world country, and a no-skill job here is 200 buck also

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2141828
    obligatory
    Participant

    “observed” without clue of fuel state or even accurate angle is worth squat

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2142149
    obligatory
    Participant

    The JAS 39 Gripen is an aerodynamic statically
    unstable aircraft in the pitch axis at subsonic speeds
    with a time to double amplitude of approximately 0.4
    seconds.

    correct me if i’m wrong, but does this mean pitch doubles every 0.4 seconds ?
    i wonder if any fighter out there bar EF has this rate of pitch,
    f-22 might be able to thanks to thrust vectoring but then again there were comments
    it had issues with EF

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2142152
    obligatory
    Participant

    errr, “the aircraft could be “parked” at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha. ” (parked as in, controlled flight, indefinitely)
    why would it have issues doing 50 aoa ? other than the fact that it slow the fighter down, that is

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2142156
    obligatory
    Participant

    i think what blackarcher meant was: in software controlled flight, gripen does not exceed 26 AoA,
    software will see to it that it doesnt go further.
    i wonder if its common to override software limit among regular pilots ?
    is there disciplinary measures taken if they do ?
    it may not be the smartest thing to do in a many vs many scenario,
    but i think the pilots will have an itch to pull 12g on occasion

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2142211
    obligatory
    Participant

    There is a possibility for the pilot to override the soft
    stop in an emergency situation and pull the control
    stick back to the hard stop and thus get an extra 3g,
    when aircraft speed is above 600 km/h. This requires
    an extra stick force of approximately 135 N.

    i didnt know gripen has an override mode over the normal soft limited envelope,
    how much more AoA is required to add another another 3g ?

    altho the graph display up to 90 degree AoA, he discusses mostly only up to 45 AoA

    in reply to: circular runways, the future? #2144013
    obligatory
    Participant

    just remember to make the outer wheel larger and you’ll be fine

    in reply to: Angled vs straight flight deck aesthetics #2008716
    obligatory
    Participant

    i dont think its going to be a pretty sight if anyone misses the g string on the first pic.
    pretty is as pretty does and i prefer the angled ship

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 6,596 total)