dark light

robban

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The Thread of Prototypes Only #2547193
    robban
    Participant

    http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2951.jpg
    The first J29 Tunnan prototype.

    http://user.tninet.se/~xpz458v/32-2.jpg
    “Blรฅ Urban”, the first Lansen A32 protoype.

    http://user.tninet.se/~xpz458v/502.jpg
    32502, the second prototype for the J32B.

    http://www.ra.se/kra/bilder/0511_02.jpg
    “Lill- Draken”, a prototype for testing of the dubbeldelta layout for the Draken.

    http://web.telia.com/~u52220224/12235-1redU35-2SAAB.jpg
    35-1 and 35-2 Draken prototypes

    http://www.svenskhistoria.se/bilder/viggen.jpg
    37-2 and 37-3 Viggen prototypes. Larger image http://www.airtoaircombat.com/images/viggen_lg.jpg

    http://w1.650.telia.com/~u65018578/177AJ37-PrototyperLEL.jpg
    37-2 and 37-3.

    http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/saab-jas39-gripen-01.jpg
    39-2, the second Gripen protoype. Other prototypes are, 39-1(crashed), 39-3, 39-4, 39-5, 39-6, 39101, 39800.

    http://gripen.wz.cz/pictures/Technicky_popis/Gripen/JAS39_2black.jpg
    39-2, painted black fรถr spin trials.

    http://magnum-x.pl/pol/images/zoom/FZVXYW/viewsize/JAS39-fotGripen_1.jpg
    39101, the first serialproduced Gripen filled the spot of the crashed first prototype.

    http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frtypen/Fotos/saab/GripBSei.jpg 39800, twoseater prototype.

    in reply to: Typhoon – Beauty or Beast? #2549496
    robban
    Participant

    Heh, I’ve never noticed that! The canard foreplanes on the 4000 are not deflected at any pic I’ve seen. But the pic above seems to suggest that it was possible, or it would be possible.

    Hmm, too bad, here’s a screenshot of mine from FS9, where it has movable canards. ๐Ÿ˜€

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/4000-12-1.jpg

    in reply to: Swedish Airforce to acquire 2 C-17s? #2550232
    robban
    Participant

    Svenska Freds, a Swedish peace organisation who’s pretty much against anything military, actually wants Sweden to aquire 3 C-17’s.

    in reply to: Unmanned Aircraft needed to defeat 30 g SAMS #2550251
    robban
    Participant

    Over what distance?!

    I don’t remember where I read it, but it didn’t say at what distance, I’m sorry.

    in reply to: Unmanned Aircraft needed to defeat 30 g SAMS #2550290
    robban
    Participant

    From what I’ve read the IRIS-T can pull 100 G’s, and turn 180 degrees in 2 seconds! ๐Ÿ˜ฎ

    in reply to: Typhoon – Beauty or Beast? #2550446
    robban
    Participant

    Wikepedia on the subject of canards.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard

    The term canard has also come to mean any horizontal airfoil mounted in front of the main wing.

    Strakes = an aerodynamic surface generally mounted on the fuselage of an aircraft to fine-tune the airflow. Aircraft designers choose the location, angle and shape of the strake to produce the desired interaction.

    in reply to: Typhoon – Beauty or Beast? #2551065
    robban
    Participant

    I don’t know if there’s a size limit for canards, but I do believe the Mirage 2000 has strakes, or small vortex generators, not canards.

    in reply to: Typhoon – Beauty or Beast? #2551310
    robban
    Participant

    If we talk pure delta’s, I think the Mirage 2000 has the best looks! But if we allow dubbeldeltas, nothing beats the J35 Draken! ๐Ÿ™‚

    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/draken/draken_04.jpg

    in reply to: The J-10 / Lavi connection #2551846
    robban
    Participant

    And if you want to go that route, I think the first canard-delta fighter “design” was either the F-108 or the F-106X, whichever came first-and that pretty much blows away the whole “canard deltas are uber-advanced 80’s designs” aspect of any argument. The first canard delta fighter to fly was probably Kfir or the Mirage IIING.

    Don’t forget the Viggen. Saab started to develope this canard delta design already in 1954.. Viggen flew for the first time in 1967, and went into service in 1972. The canards cured some of the drawbacks of the tailless delta design, but the canards full potential wasn’t realised until fighters with fully movable canards and unstable designs appeared. ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: The J-10 / Lavi connection #2551858
    robban
    Participant

    But when it comes to sustained turn rates, payload, acceleration, climbs and dives, I’m not sure how the Gripen would come close to an F-16. Sheer power and high thrust to weight ratios often account for themselves.

    One of the key aspects of the Gripens performance is that it has very low drag. Even in high G manouvers.
    The only official number I have for the Gripen’s sustained turnrate is 20 deg/sec. From what I know the F-16 can manage 21.7 deg/sec. But I don’t know which version. Considering that the F-16 has a much better thrust to weight ratio, the Gripen numbers are quite impressive.
    Official acceleration numbers for the Gripen are 30 seconds from M 0.5 to M 1.1. Climb rate, as in m/sec, I don’t know. But it can reach 11.000 meters in 2 minutes from a standing start.

    The Gripen can fly at supersonic speeds without using the afterburner, even with an external fuel tank and missiles. That speaks alot for its low drag.

    I’d like to see a Gripen fitted with the GE-F414, or the EJ200. ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: Typhoon – Beauty or Beast? #2553763
    robban
    Participant

    Robban i can not understand how you do not like the IAI Lavi, it is a F-16 with delta wings and canards.

    The F-16 looks good, it has the right proportions. The Lavi, well. I find the canopy and radome too wide, and the intake is too small. It’d be interesting to see a single seat Lavi, it might have looked better. ๐Ÿ™‚ Any idea what the canopy on the single seater would look like?

    in reply to: Typhoon – Beauty or Beast? #2553843
    robban
    Participant

    Well, I like the looks of the Eurofighter. It’s not super pretty, but from some angles it can be beautiful. ๐Ÿ™‚

    It is not however in the same league as the Gripen or the Rafale. Delta canards usually look good. But the Lavi looks hideous. Also the MiG-1.44 is probably the ugliest delta canard ever designed! The J-10 on the other hand, looks cool, even beautiful from some angles. The Mirage 4000 is not a favorite of mine either, but the Mirage 2000 is very beautiful, granted it’s not a canard design. But the small strakes are nice detail.
    The Viggen looks awesomepowerful, few fighters can match its brutal looks.

    The most beautiful delta canard of all time are (IMO), the Rafale AND Gripen. I can’t choose between the two. ๐Ÿ˜€

    (The F-16XL looks nice, but it doesn’t come close to the Draken.)

    in reply to: Totally unrealistic? #526498
    robban
    Participant

    Thanks for your inputs all! ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: Air show crash in South Africa. #2559802
    robban
    Participant

    Very sad news! ๐Ÿ™

    in reply to: Ysterplaat AFB AADE #2559850
    robban
    Participant

    I’m unable to answer your questions, but I do look forwad to those pics! ๐Ÿ™‚

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 360 total)