Zentrandude Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 doubts about whether it was technically viable at the time - apparently, twin engine VTOL is a tricky one... its understandable. balancing issues are more important with a 2nd engine weighing down the bird.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted August 16, 2004 Author Posted August 16, 2004 DUDE please link or post pics of the dragonly from hell dual engine afterburning VTOL!! that wil KICK ASS!! I think I have seen that somewhere in jane's! And yes the harrier is hard to fly. It's hard enouigh hovering without spinning out of control in Jane's fighter's anthology/USNF97 but hell imagine how ahrd it is in REAL LIFE! Stealth takes away a lot of fun sometimes lol. And while we are at it boys.......can ANYONE find pics of ASF-14,quickstrike tomcat? I have seen ST21 in my books and also @MATS., But quickstrike and ASF-14....seen it once I believe...looked like a delta winged tomcat at the front with swing wings....but forgot where.... Also those who played airforce delta storm on xbox what does the F-14G hellcat II look like? and for sake of comparison F-18L vs F/A-18F vs YF-17 hornet superfestivus fight time!
F-ZeroOne Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 DUDE please link or post pics of the dragonly from hell dual engine afterburning VTOL!! that wil KICK ASS!! I don't have any pictures myself, but this link should tell you all you need to know: http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.htm One description I've heard of it is that it would have been a "Harrier with Phantom capability". This is an interesting tale from someone who has apparently had some experience that I found while looking for the other link: http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=1&c=1&t=17694 If you follow the pages, note what this chap has to say about his choice of fighter... Something else I forgot about the Harrier - the original design team was led by none other than Sydney Camm - designer of, among others, the Hawker Tempest and Hawker Hurricane!
Nied Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Kinda off topic from what we've been discussing here But I found a pretty interesting article on the Raptor the other day. RAPTOR UNWRAPPED Alot of it looks to be a little sketchy (the Raptor will carry more than six AMRAAMs once the compressed carry version comes out? I thought the C model was the compressed carry version), but some of it is pretty neat stuff that I haven't heard of before. Certainly the idea that AESA radar is powerful enough to jam hostile radars just by focusing the beam is pretty cool and has the potential to turn the Raptor into a pretty deadly SEAD platform.
David Hingtgen Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Yeah---C model already is the "smaller for internal bays" variant. And it is already in service, and has been for some time. And F-22's carry 6. If you put in B models, can only carry 4. The C is as small as it's going to get. If you want smaller, you're going to need a total redesign and go to ASRAAM-style vectoring.
hellohikaru Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 I didn't know that the Swiss had a advanced lightweight fighter too. Might have been comparable with Gripen and J-10.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted August 17, 2004 Author Posted August 17, 2004 looks like a trainer. Havent seebn it before but it resembles a gripen,. In fact the swedes have always had fighters. Viggen, Draken, and Gripen. Viggen ECM variant being really really nice looking.
ewilen Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 (edited) As long as we're taking a little side tour of obscure but interesting fighters, look what I found...for those who can't decide if they prefer the Tigershark, Hornet, or Falcon, I present, the Ching-kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter. Some pic links: pic 1, pic 2, pic 3. Edited August 17, 2004 by ewilen
David Hingtgen Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 I've got a WAPJ with the IDF as the feature article. Nifty little plane, but nothing really notable IMHO. (I do favor big, heavy fighters overall)
Knight26 Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Ah the IDF, the bastard child of the F-16 and F-18, and from I remember of the WAPJ article about it it is a complete POS. Very low TWR, stress fractures in the wings easily, low combat load weight, just not a very good plane design.
ewilen Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 The globalsecurity article mentions that it's underpowered, but otherwise it's described as being better than whatever the PRC had to offer (at least when the article was written).
Mislovrit Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 I wasn't being serious about ASRAAMs on helicopters - it was intended as a comment about the state of the UK defence industry... latest story doing the rounds is that some of our military "kit" is going to be procured from China! At least it not as bad of the situation is in Canada.
David Hingtgen Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 knight26--so you think crashing on its first flight is a bad sign? PS--I see a lot more F-16 than F-18 in it. Though I do get annoyed that SO many "new" planes look like F-16's anyways.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted August 18, 2004 Author Posted August 18, 2004 doesnt seem like it was produced. MOre like was supposed to be produced but canned. Right plane wrong time, like the Northrop F-20 tigershark. Maybe the origin of the gripen rose from the ashes of this plane. but who knows. Hey guys anyone know about the Singfapore A-4S and A-4R for argentina?
hellohikaru Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 A-4R ? I though it was A-4AR Fightinghawk or something like that. Highly modified ex-USMC A-4M with APG-66 replacing the Hughes ARBS. A-4S RSAF Skyhawk Walkaround http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1...Lee/walk502.htm Info http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/singaporeskyhawksmy_1.htm
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 So, whatcha guys think about the J-10?
Knight26 Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 So, whatcha guys think about the J-10? The lavi redesign? The lavi was a fantastic plane, if china stays true to its design it will be a very big threat in a close in engagement. However some redesigns are already evident so I doubt it will be as good as the original Isreali aircraft. Chinese aerospace has a history of just turning out cheap knock offs of other countries aircraft, bootlegs if you would. However any cuts they make to the design usually are directly related to making mroe and more of them cheaper. Personnally if I were an F-16 or F-18 pilot I would not want to engage a Lavi close in, or the J-10 for that matter.
hellohikaru Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 ah...i see the typical western view of anything of non-us/european origin. While its true that china may have reverse engineered russian planes before The Chengdu J-10 is not a mere copy of the IAI Lavi. It uses the same basic concept(canard and delta) and maybe the chinese sought Israeli help but the J-10 is a completely new aircraft. The J-10 is not only as good as the Lavi it will be better being developed more than a decade later. The plane will get the new WS-10 engine replacing the AL-31 once that is ready. It will be the Mig-21 of the 21st century when they put in full production. Expect to see current users of the J-7 to buy this bird. My guess is it would be comparable to the Gripen in agility and better in terms of range and payload.
Nied Posted August 19, 2004 Posted August 19, 2004 I don't think it has anything to do with looking down on Non-western designs, just Chinese. The Chinese have yet to build an original aircraft and the J-10 certainly isn't changing anything (the picture you posted makes it pretty clear how heavily it's based on the Lavi). There are plenty of non-western designs that are completely original (the Indian LCA is a perfect example) but there aren't that many Chinese ones.
hellohikaru Posted August 19, 2004 Posted August 19, 2004 I think the resemblance is just superficial but you gotta start somewhere. Maybe the chinese got help from the Israelis but no one is admitting though. Even their PL-8 AAM look suspiciously like the Python 3/4. The SH-5 and J-8II fighter are quite original designs. I don't think they resemble any plane in existance.
ewilen Posted August 19, 2004 Posted August 19, 2004 Who cares about originality--if it's a good plane, it's a good plane. (And if it isn't...)
Nied Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 (edited) I think the resemblance is just superficial but you gotta start somewhere. Maybe the chinese got help from the Israelis but no one is admitting though. Even their PL-8 AAM look suspiciously like the Python 3/4. The SH-5 and J-8II fighter are quite original designs. I don't think they resemble any plane in existance. The J-8 is just an enlarged Mig-21/J-7 with a new nose grafted on (one that looks suspicously like the Mig-23's). And the SH-5, while more orginal, is also very close to the An-12/Y-8 in design. In China's defense I should note that while it does have a passing resemblance to the Japanese F-1 and the Jaguar, the JH-7 is a unique design (though it won't win any beuty contests). China seems to have a problem fostering creativity in it's aerospace industry, They've yet to come up with more than a handful of designs that are signifigantly original, lord knows they have the potential but they've failed to live up to it at almost every turn. Edited August 20, 2004 by Nied
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 Well, it does look like the Lavi. But if the basic design is good, why mess too much with it. I wonder how much Isreali involvement there is in the project. The Chinese and Isreal seem to be on rather good terms these days even if not much is publicised about it. I always thought the tail fin (in the pics I seen) was waaay too humongous though. Does it need _that_ much stability? Still, if they can make em cheap and make lots of em. All it needs is approximately the ability of a late model F-16 (with more range) and that'll be enough.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted August 28, 2004 Author Posted August 28, 2004 guys more vs battles...some REALLY obscure nad weird...but cool ALSO...for 30$ is Air force delta strike a good deal? anyways now on topic. JSF F-35C vs A-4AR Dogfight. Can the newest stealth fighter out manuever the skyhawk/? The skyhawk is a nimble fighter. Legacy hornet vs Super F/A-18C vs F/A-18E/F dopgfight.....Sh has drag....a lot of it according to F-16 forums and also google posts. Speed obvously isn't a key advnatafge for the super either. So who would win? I imagine the legacy has teh advantage for some reason. JSf F-35B vs Sea harrier dogfight. Harrier can VIFF. can the JSF do this as well?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted August 28, 2004 Author Posted August 28, 2004 BTW to fuel the fire to prove the tomcat is once again BETTER than the super hornet, A lot fo comments on F-16.net and numerous google group posts indicate that the Super hornet was more drag than the legacy, and in a dogfight does not have a lot of energy for energy manuveraibility, in comparison to the other fighters like the Tomcat and the Eagle. Many say speed is an important factor in a dogfight and by all means you can't possibly tell me drag is GOOD. THey say the tomcat at least can put the fight in it's own terms since it's got the power and speed to do so. And NO I am not talking about technical max operational speed, I'm simply talking about energy within a dogfight. And this seems to be true. The Super hornets main claim to fame in a WVR match would be instantaneous pitch @high alpha and low speed. The Tomcat crew could turn the match into a vertical match rather than a turn match. THe tomcat isd a good accelerator and I agree with what I have read"@least it's got the power to turn the fight onto it's own terms". THis is jsut saying the tomcat is a better fighter and not to belittle it jus because the super hornet is a better turner. Look @ the F-15 and F-16, the F-16 is a better turner but you still have people sayibng the F-15 is a way better fighter. Super hornet is a great strike plane and noone really disagrees,,,,but see replacing what the tomcat does? Oh and yea tehy compared it to flanker too.......and once agian said at least the tomcat can have sufficient spoed to fight on its own terms. SH will be qa drag whore
hellohikaru Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Remember the cranked delta F-16XL E and F Strike Falcons. How good are they in the fighter role ?And what if they had GE F101s instead of the PW F100 fitted ? How would these have compared with the supposedly inferior but good enough F-15E Mud Hen ?
David Hingtgen Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Hmmn. Don't think I've ever read anything about the XL in a fighter role. I'd presume a rather large loss of power/weight ratio, for even if it had the newest F110's, it still wouldn't make up for the structural and fuel weigh increase. F-15E's heavier than the C/D, but not by much, and the latest engines more than make up for it. Only generalized comment I can make for a delta-winged F-16 is that it would probably have better high-alpha performance, but at a cost of increased energy bleed and drag. (All deltas have inherently better high-alpha performance primarily because they require higher alpha simply to fly--Concordes land VERY nose high compared to other airliners simply because they're delta-winged)
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted August 31, 2004 Author Posted August 31, 2004 Either way david, its better than the SH in A2A LOL. How was the F-15E inferior? I think the F-16Xl was supposed to be able to supercruise with full bumbload. But that was about it I see no other advantages. BTW YF-17 cobrA RULES~ Aweome in AFDS!!!!!!! Whats the difference between YF17 and F-18L?
hellohikaru Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Don't think I've ever read anything about the XL in a fighter role Well...The F-16E(XL) would eventually be made for export so you would expect the customers to demand some multirole capability like interception, airdefence.etc The prototype flew with 4 dummy slammers mounted comformally. (All deltas have inherently better high-alpha performance primarily because they require higher alpha simply to fly--Concordes land VERY nose high compared to other airliners simply because they're delta-winged) Hence the XL doesn't have the dorsal fins How was the F-15E inferior? I think the F-16Xl was supposed to be able to supercruise with full bumbload. But that was about it I see no other advantages. From F16.net John G. Williams, lead engineer on the XL: "The XL is a marvelous airplane, but was a victim of the USAF wanting to continue to produce the F-15, which is understandable. Sometimes you win these political games, sometimes not. In most ways, the XL was superior to the F-15 as a ground attack airplane, but the F-15 was good enough." Besides said potential ability to supercruise the XL being a delta would have better low-level ride comfort and also easier to maintain. I don't have the figures for a production F-16XL E/F so its hard to come up with a reasonable power to wight ration comparison with the mudhen. Of course the FSD aircraft figures aren't that impressive. Namco's AC5 is going to feature the XL F version so i am definitely looking forward to this
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted August 31, 2004 Author Posted August 31, 2004 actuqally F-16E/F are teh newest falcons on order for Israel and the UAE. UNless I have confused myself with teh 2 seat F-16I with CFTs/. Perhaps politics played the role in choosing the stirke eagle.
David Hingtgen Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 (edited) F-16XL was single-engined, and had a delta, possibly super-critical wing. F-16's also have an inherently larger fuel fraction, and the XL was also a fuselage stretch (purely for more fuel), not merely re-winged. All things pointing to better range. Also, I think it could carry a greater number of medium bombs. Sure, F-15E's can carry dozens of 500lb dumb bombs on the CFT's, but what's the point in having it carpet-bomb? Larger smart bombs are its forte, and the XL had lots of more widely-spaced hardpoints for that. F-15's aren't limited by weight of the large bombs, but their physical proximity to each other. Even the F-14 encounters that problem, since it has to use the Phoenix pallets to carry bombs. But with that big cranked-delta wing of the XL, you could hang big bombs all over. Not like, 8, but you could probably have many more large/medium bomb loadout options than the 14 or 15. When an F-15 has a really big paveway on a CFT, that's the ONLY thing it can carry on that CFT. Waste of the 5 other hardpoints. And medium-large ones are usually limited to 2 per CFT. (I can never keep paveways straight, there's SO many variations, and there's more sizes than just 500/1000/2000lbs--so I just say "small/medium/medium-large/large/huge") F-16XL was to be the E and F models, single and twin-seater. Only in the last few months has it been decided to call Block 60's E's and F's. As for the F-15E being chosen: time/cost. F-15E's are little more than a stronger F-15D with more electronics. F-16XL is practically like a Hornet going to a Super Hornet--lots of major changes, that take a lot of time and money. MDC had F-15E prototypes flying very soon after they got the contract. Edited August 31, 2004 by David Hingtgen
David Hingtgen Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 Blatantly stolen from another forum: What will the F-35's name be? Chicken, Turkey, and other birds too fat to really fly are the most-suggested. Naval version? F-35 Penguin.
Lynx7725 Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 Blatantly stolen from another forum:What will the F-35's name be? Chicken, Turkey, and other birds too fat to really fly are the most-suggested. Naval version? F-35 Penguin. How about F-35 Dodo?
hellohikaru Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 Dodo is a nice one. F-35 Swissknife F-35 Kiwi F-35 Accountant
Recommended Posts