well, now that we are in the interesting ship thread, why not to discuss about interesting propulsion ???, so..
-what happened with some navy experiments on helium thermo-ionic generator in th 70s???
-what happened with some russian-japaneses MHD propulsion experiments in the 80-90s??
-what about thermo-jet propulsion (that is used by some petro-tankers)?
there are looot of proyects about space planes, do you think that will be a real market in the future???
one of the most difficult problem (if it isnt the most) is the space (and weight) of fuel, maybe the answer is new fuels with better weight/power ratio, but also the chemicals have their limits
btw, is true that rumor of the space bomber uses for the space shuttle???what you think guys the shuttle was an failure???
well, i have seen some concepts with circular wings, but the idea that i talked is about techs that still has not been developed, is like the oblicue or FSW wing, both works in theory but todays complementary tech level is still dont ready to make it operational.
If a flying disc had advantages, the skies would be full of them.
hmmmm, well that isnt so true, sometimes the aerodynamics shape-concepts must wait complementary tech (like fbw ,unstable concepts, composites etc…)
jejeje..i have already reached my first 500 messages!!!! a memorable day:D
i dont understand completely yet how works the aero-design of the disc, whats the big advantage?, maybe increase of area with an decent aspect and lift vector position without increase of the width? or avoiding narrows portions in the extreme of the wings??-to reduce drag-
also we must consider that are designs based on the mig25 or foxbat aero works (like in some famous chinese f16-22 windtunel tests)
yes Mpjay my conection isnt so good :p
well, if i remember well, the cranked wing works better for sub/tran-sonic speed, and the delta constant leading edge angle is better for supersonic, but maybe the requierements are for high transonic speed (M0.9-M1)
MAN YOU PUT AN 52mb FILE!!!!!! hard to download!!!!
Could you put more interesting info about the file in the thread???, thanks aerospacetech
well, what about the EF or Rafale??
new data…
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/MIG-15/Perf_Mig-15_Combat_3.html
the f86s lost in AA combat was 103, that 70 number was also revised, the 345 were in accidents and combat
the russians supplied the migs to china and NK, those 340 are from russian stadistics not are russians piloted planes losses (at the begining of the war the NK air force didnt have any mig15, and the chineses migs grow in an impressive number).
During the war the USAF pilots claimed over 800 enemy planes. Postwar research revised that figure downward to 379, closely matching the admitted Russian losses of 345
i must to explain that serius post war reasearch down the 800 claims to 370, and later with russians estadistics to 340
which pilot claims to revise, so the contemporary numbers stand although known to be generally more than twice as high as can be documented.
is clear the overclaims…
Please do your homework first, before you do al….
Sens dont be ridicoulus…..
Anyway i think that the facts are clear, i know sens that you are an very very biased poster, so i wont waste my time in this endless discussion, you can believe what you want (that fantastic 340+340+50, later changed to NK 150, etc…)
what the hell!!! π
Sens, you are dreaming….
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/MiGKillers.htm
During the war the USAF pilots claimed over 800 enemy planes. Postwar research revised that figure downward to 379, closely matching the admitted Russian losses of 345. The Air Force has not disclosed, perhaps does not fully know, which pilot claims to revise, so the contemporary numbers stand although known to be generally more than twice as high as can be documented.
tssss….. :rolleyes:
cru, the official claims number in the USAF remain in that 700-800 migs downed (to keep that mith only for propaganda), but post-war studies -confirmed with russian sources- down that number to 340, the 184 planes are the f86s that the usaf maintained after the war in the far east theater
avro mach3???
well, 660 planes are arround 700, not??,what you wanted??? the exactly number?? man, i like to read and discuss other things, not only aviation topics…im sure that i read that 700 data at other link/book, research by your self…tsss…
i told you from the start
i know what is the diference between total planes deployed and planes in service in an determinated moment
yes, my english is bad, but i think that was clear…
ahhh man, at the end of the war were arround 400 f86, those numbers are the average planes in service in that moment, not the total deployed :rolleyes:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/july2003/0703korea.asp
All USAF aces of the Korean War flew Sabres. By warβs end, 439 F-86s were on hand in the Korean theater, out of a total combat aircraft strength of 1,459.
plus +/- 200 planes lost, 600-700 machines π , anyway is clear that the soviets never enjoined an numeric superiority