dark light

emile

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 525 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Eurocanards vs J-20 and J-10B #2350002
    emile
    Participant

    Doubtless, the J-20 could possibly gains overwheming superiority on avionics system compare to either Euro-wind or other foreplane fighter due to its relatively huge space for such equipment.
    Considered internal space we can say its internal fuel is 10 ton class, I mean this is expectable, not a certainty.

    Another superiorty of this J-20 to the others I mentioned above is aerodynamics. Its VLT I persisted in is much mature than typhoon and rafale used to both.

    The VLT structured by vortex gererator, foreplane and LERX followed each other at exactly same level truely will raise an unimaginable lift, but the immanent discrepancy also emerged by that anhedral of foreplane, which takes much risk on RCS due to adding a reflected section even the defection angle of foreplane to be zero and unforeseeable drag maybe during its transonic region.

    If the drag wouldn’t appear, then the weight is there.
    J-20 is the first fighter with such huge fuselage related to AL-31 engine which is relatively not so small since Panavia Tornado.
    A branch design of Tornado was planing to mount engine sized F110 or TF30 alike, but with RB199 made it to be bomber more than geniue fighter.
    Comparably, Superbug is a sort of Attacker rather than an air-dominent fighter due to its relatively small engine, although its engine is really powerful on TWr aspect.
    An evitable way to be unalloyed bomber or attacker is to relay on considerably small wing load or a higher lift.

    However, each way for inreasing lift contributs weight, and most of people who agued with me in Chinese group denied roughly on J-20’s necessary daimeter and weight.
    Despite those data, all we can say is the advantage of weapon carried internally for drag and RCS reducing. Thus we make a competition of two tech with the one start from last centrey 90’s and the other from 70’s.

    in reply to: Saab 37 Viggen Questions #2350749
    emile
    Participant

    Another one similiar to the Viggen was F-105 Thunderchirf, but all those above did not explain why Fitter was popular. Obviously, big does not simply means expensive.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2350754
    emile
    Participant

    Here is the photo compared for someone called 游民 or 高高空 and others 龙腾, 邓肯, Paralay etc.
    Finnally I found where was the mistake he and/or others made.

    in reply to: Saab 37 Viggen Questions #2351162
    emile
    Participant

    Which part of the Viggen shares components with the F-14?

    The Viggen is almost in the same weight and power class as the F-4 – only for the more technically capable and well funded air arms….

    NoNono, you’ve gone too far away.
    Either weight or power the Viggen to the Phantom2 is significantly small.
    I think nobody will put MiG-23 and F-4 together to compare weight and power.
    Ten ton class to 13 ton class is still remarkable.:D

    in reply to: Saab 37 Viggen Questions #2351994
    emile
    Participant

    The predecessor of JA37 was some sorts of bomber, not a meddium fighter to adapt defensive requirment.
    You can make out Hi-lift wing layout from its multiple-camber foreplane coupled with wing like a LERX for not maneuver but lift only.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 4 #2358722
    emile
    Participant

    Oh dear three times the same pic in a row:rolleyes: And has anyone looked into the bay to claim it’s a weapons bay? :p

    Well, somebody recognized it as MLG door, but since I am a Chinese, I dreamed it is a door of weapon bay, true or not, is it against your law?:p

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 4 #2359091
    emile
    Participant

    With anything else neglected, this is not an ugly jetfighter. I am becoming to understand why its fuselage is such long by the powerplant vest in AL-31 to be certainty.
    This aircraft reminds me of Avro CF-105 Arrow which trended to the role play in CAF and more likely that Super Mirage 4000 to Armée de l’Air.
    I do not want to offend those fans of this jet. There is some new/modern tech to be suppied into this fighter, I excepted either, and I am waiting to see any mates who are knowledgable of this airplane will tell us some sorts of advantage about it.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 4 #2359420
    emile
    Participant

    Weapon bay openning…..!

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 4 #2359434
    emile
    Participant

    Very well, here is my contribution
    Apology for the photo resized because of the volume.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 4 #2327545
    emile
    Participant

    There is no “if” but certainly the J-20 is a remarkably huge fighter even slightly bigger than Su-27 so its weight, could possibly become a problem for its T/W ratio.

    in reply to: mig-23 vs f-16 #2341166
    emile
    Participant

    Much thanks
    Do you have flight envelop to prove or detailed G data?

    in reply to: mig-23 vs f-16 #2345646
    emile
    Participant

    Does anyone get Climb Rate data of MiG-23 and F-16 at all altitude?
    Someone told me Climb rate of MiG-23 can whelm F-16 at high altitude and supersonic speed.

    emile
    Participant

    There is no air-intakes can be called stealth intake.
    So-called stealth intake is a funny noun.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 4 #2350958
    emile
    Participant

    I think she’s right about the landing gear, judging from the attached pic.

    The concave being under LERX on J-20 is a place where for fold leaving on side of PAKFA’s inlet as well. Consider the thickness the modality on PAKFA is not a formula which can be copied to J-20.
    The changover portion at where more approaching to LERX is already to be hit while the undercarrage folding into the wheel bay, so the place you saw left for moving but hold.

    I believe everything I told which although is thruth but you are not going to admit, never mind, we will wait to see.

    in reply to: MiG-29 Fulcrum #2351064
    emile
    Participant

    The maiden test flight of the upgraded for India MiG-29UPG took place at Zhukovsky airfield near Moscow on February 4, 2010. RAC “MiG” has successfully performed upgrade of MiG-29 fighter to MiG-29UPG version for the Indian Air Force. The duration of the flight was about 1 hour and has passed without incident. The flight was performed by Chief of Flight Service, senior test pilot of RAC “MiG”, Michael Beljaev, a MiG statement said.

    India had signed a $960 million contract with Russia in 2008 to upgrade five squadrons of MiG-29 fighters which are nearly 20 years old. The upgrade involves increasing the service life of approximately 69 MiG-29s, from the present 25 years (2,500 flight hours) to 40 years (3,500 hours). The upgrades are also expected to turn these air-superiority fighters into competent all-weather multi-role jets with beyond-visual-range combat capabilities.

    While the first six MiG-29s will be upgraded in Russia, the rest will be retrofitted by HAL in Nasik, India. The upgrade programme includes replacing existing radars with the advanced multi-functional Zhuk-ME radar and a new weapon control system. The twin-engined MiG-29s will carry sophisticated air-to-air missiles, high-accuracy air-to-ground missiles and ‘smart aerial’ bombs. The Russian RAC MiG company will also plough back 30 per cent of the contract value into India by setting up consignment depots and service centres, along with simulator centres with training aids.

    The range still is the problem deemed to be worriable for MiG-29 even for its great retrofitted version MiG-35. So, why there is no CFT planed for MiG-29 like recently upgraded proposal of SHE/F?

    The MiG-29 seemd always more efficient than Super Hornet to me. With significantly smaller airframe but roughly same payload available.

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 525 total)