|
wdarkk posted:It'd work better than the Yamato would. You know, due to not being blown in half. I want to see a cartoon about Space Taffy 3.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
Beardless posted:I want to see a cartoon about Space Taffy 3. Pretty sure that's called Star Wars. Or maybe The Last Starfighter. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Instead of having conventional aircraft carriers, why not have smaller, cheaper escort carriers that can launch Canadian developed drones? USMC: "Do you have that in amphibious? Hooah!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
karoshi posted:USMC: "Do you have that in amphibious? Hooah!" More like "hey, why are you giving us something new - what's wrong with it?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:No, they got it right. The Super Etendard is swept further back and it has a cruciform tail, while the Mirage F1 has a tailplane at nearly the same height as the wings. Mirage F1 also has that distinctive single-engine high-mounted wing skinny look. You rarely see those. I think the only contemporary fighter that has the same configuration is the MiG-23.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Speaking of Mirage F1, it is now officially no longer in service in the French Air Force. It had been developed in nine months between 1965 and 1966, entered service in 1973, and was until today the oldest fighter plane still in active service in its primary operator. It remains in use in Gabon, Iran, Libya, and Morocco. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38AEBg2ZkXs Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
What is the advantage of the delta/canard configuration that every new euro-jet uses?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
IIRC one of the advantages is that it avoids deep stall, but I'm not sure what else it provides that non-canard doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 23:42
|
|
 Evacuation of green zone, Baghdad Aug 2014
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
DonkeyHotay posted:What is the advantage of the delta/canard configuration that every new euro-jet uses? I only have a layman's understanding of the subject but as far as I understand it, the basic idea is to keep the advantages of the delta wing (such as low drag at transonic and supersonic speeds) while improving some of its less desirable characteristics (such as huge induced drag in turns and generally bad turn performance) by adding a second set of horizontal control surfaces. This was not really feasible before the advent of completely fly-by-wire systems because of the complexities involved in having those two surfaces work together in a way that makes sense to the pilot. Also, on the Gripen (gripen gripen gripen all I do is post about the gripen), the canards are used as airbrakes on landing; note how they are angled downwards as soon as the nose wheel touches the ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mrdbj9IVpg&t=424s TheFluff fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jun 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
DonkeyHotay posted:What is the advantage of the delta/canard configuration that every new euro-jet uses? For supersonic aircraft the tailless delta configuration is the most efficient configuration for a lot of different things, but for a fighter they had one big issue: when the aircraft is maneuvering the elevons are the surfaces doing the moving, and while they're moving they aren't providing lift. This means that low speed maneuverability tends to be pretty poor, as the more the aircraft maneuvers the less air the elevons have to work with, which means they have to deflect more, which means less of the wing is contributing lift. That's why secondary control surfaces are very desirable in a delta, like a traditional tailplane in a MiG-21 or the canards on all of the modern planes. It is only with modern computers though that the canards became useful as a true control surface, prior to the latest generation they were pretty much limited to being either fixed or just housing flaps. I think the reason the US didn't go that direction is because they seriously compromise LO characteristics but I don't know this for certain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
I don't think there's any way around the big drag of a full delta wing at high angles of attack (i.e. during turns) so I kinda wonder why the Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale all went for it. I think the Rafale's wing is actually a bit shorter than a full delta, like the F-16 but not as short. Just kind of a teensy bit shorter than the Eurofighter's full delta. I would guess that having a two-engine fighter would mitigate the delta's loss of airspeed at high angles of attack. If you can accelerate fast as gently caress it wouldn't matter as much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I don't think there's any way around the big drag of a full delta wing at high angles of attack (i.e. during turns) so I kinda wonder why the Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale all went for it. I think the Rafale's wing is actually a bit shorter than a full delta, like the F-16 but not as short. Just kind of a teensy bit shorter than the Eurofighter's full delta. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I would guess that having a two-engine fighter would mitigate the delta's loss of airspeed at high angles of attack. The Gripen is a single-engine delta. Same for the older Mirage III and Mirage 2000.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
I thought the point of a delta was to have a giant (i.e. very lift-y) wing that is also efficient at high speed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
I thought a big delta also gave you a poo poo ton of room for fuel, part of the thinking behind the F-16XL and FB-22 ideas. Also calling the F-22 wing a delta seems kind of a stretch. I mean, yes, by the Wiki definition of 'a wing shaped like a triangle' it's roughly delta-ish; it's more trapezoidal, and I'm not sure where 'cropped delta' with a pulled back trailing edge and 'trapezoidal' differ. But if the F-22 has a delta wing with tailplanes, then you could argue the F-15 and F-16 (and probably others) do as well, and that's not what people generally think of when they think delta. All three of those planes IIRC derive significant lift from the blended fuselage shapes and I'm unclear what that does for the delta's pros and cons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
The MiG-21 has a delta wing with tailplanes as well, and if you want to argue that doesn't count, I don't know what to tell you. The thing most people think about with Eurocanards is the tail-less delta design, but the word itself refers to a wing with a straight trailing edge and a swept leading edge (which definitely includes the F-16, and I think the F-18 is close enough to count) versus a swept or straight wing. The difference between a small cropped delta with strakes (F-16) and a large delta (F-106) is going to be based in part on the increased wing area of the latter (and the airfoil chosen matters too.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I thought a big delta also gave you a poo poo ton of room for fuel, part of the thinking behind the F-16XL and FB-22 ideas. Calling something a delta wing has more to do with the effect of the wing on airflow rather than the overall triangular look of a wing now a days. That angled leading edge creates vortices that run along the surface of the wing, allowing it to have a critical angle of attack way beyond what a traditional wing can offer. Leading Edge Root Extensions also greatly help by generating a larger vortex that then runs along the wing, which you see on most fighters. So basically, if you are getting this, it is probably going to be called a delta wing:  Edit: And both the F-15 and F-16 are delta wings, they are both Cropped Deltas. Pages 7-9 of this show a few planforms and the coefficient of lift(CL) vs Angle of Attack chart, as well as the formula that will get you in the ballpark for performance. http://people.clarkson.edu/~pmarzocc/AE429/AE-429-4.pdf Bondematt fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The Gripen is a single-engine delta. Same for the older Mirage III and Mirage 2000. And I know a major gripe about the Mirage III (and I would assume the Mirage 2000 which has a virtually identical airframe) was how badly it lost speed in turns. I was saying that a twin engine arrangement like the Eurofighter or Rafale might be different because you can just slam on the afterburner and not give a drat. I don't know about the Gripen man I was just pressing buttons on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
Old engineers are the best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw Q: So, what is the mission of the F35? a: Well, the primary mission is to send money from Congress to Lockheed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:Calling something a delta wing has more to do with the effect of the wing on airflow rather than the overall triangular look of a wing now a days. That angled leading edge creates vortices that run along the surface of the wing, allowing it to have a critical angle of attack way beyond what a traditional wing can offer. Leading Edge Root Extensions also greatly help by generating a larger vortex that then runs along the wing, which you see on most fighters. Thanks, that makes it a lot clearer than the wiki definition. Of course with that definition I'm not sure any modern fighter -doesn't- have a delta, which makes the discussion of whether or not to get one a little moot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Iron Tusk posted:Q: So, what is the mission of the F35? Someone suggested a funny theory to me that the cost overruns and apparent bumbling with the F-35 is actually a smokescreen for funneling the money to a secret stealth UAV program 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Karl Rove posted:Someone suggested a funny theory to me that the cost overruns and apparent bumbling with the F-35 is actually a smokescreen for funneling the money to a secret stealth UAV program If that were true they have all these foreign countries funneling money to a US secret program. I'd be pretty pissed if that were the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
That would be a tremendously expensive UAV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That would be a tremendously expensive UAV. What if it has LEO capability for total global strike and is hypersonic and ABM and lasers and is a battle mech and shields and nukes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:If that were true they have all these foreign countries funneling money to a US secret program. I would forgive Congress on this one, if that were the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Iron Tusk posted:Old engineers are the best. That's awesome. He's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 15:01
|
|
Flikken posted:What if it has LEO capability for total global strike and is hypersonic and ABM and lasers and is a battle mech and shields and nukes? So Gundams basically.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Breaky posted:So Gundams basically. I don't watch Anime so I guess so?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:That's awesome. He's awesome. As I understand it he was involved in designing the F-15 and later the F-16. His assertion that pretty much all "stealth" was defeated by 1940's era radar was pretty interesting. Oscar Wilde Bunch fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Iron Tusk posted:. His assertion that pretty much all "stealth" was defeated by 1940's era radar was pretty interesting. lol. Now I need to watch this clip.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That would be a tremendously expensive UAV. "Mr. President, we have three hours before the North Koreans are knocking at the door!" "We still have one option left..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Iron Tusk posted:As I understand it he was involved in designing the F-15 and later the F-16. His assertion that pretty much all "stealth" was defeated by 1940's era radar was pretty interesting. He's using bullshit partial truths to make his case. Seriously, he's about as accurate as Fox News on immigration. Edit: the 5-second version is that the LO characteristics of the F-22 and likely the F-35 are designed to reduce detection range against specific, USEFUL radar bands. Like the high frequency bands used by fighter jets and SAM Target Tracking radars. Those are the ones that guide missiles, not massive early warning radars running low frequencies...they can't resolve a target into something that can be shot at unless you're launching Genies. Godholio fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Edit: the 5-second version is that the LO characteristics of the F-22 and likely the F-35 are designed to reduce detection range against specific, USEFUL radar bands. Like the high frequency bands used by fighter jets and SAM Target Tracking radars. Those are the ones that guide missiles, not massive early warning radars running low frequencies...they can't resolve a target into something that can be shot at unless you're launching Genies. Someone else correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the assumption that this was more or less the point of stealth: it prevents the 'useful' radar systems from being able to lock onto the plane and thus keep away missiles. Low-frequency radar could tell you "yep, there are planes up in that there sky" but not much beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Karl Rove posted:Someone else correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the assumption that this was more or less the point of stealth: it prevents the 'useful' radar systems from being able to lock onto the plane and thus keep away missiles. Low-frequency radar could tell you "yep, there are planes up in that there sky" but not much beyond that. Yeah, for a good case of this being used look at the F-117 that got shot down. Supposedly to actually guide with the tracking frequency the bomb bay door had to be open.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:That's awesome. He's awesome. Not really. It's difficult to find a wrong way to criticize the F-35, but god drat if Pierre Sprey didn't manage it. He's basically an old crank who believes all fighters will ever need is two missiles and a gun. Like how North Korea fanboys claim that the DPRK's hordes of MiG-21s will overwhelm the evil capitalist fighters with their frivolous bourgeoisie luxuries like radars and datalinks and actual pilot training.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Well to be fair a massive cloud of mig-21 debris will be hazardous to anyone underneath.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Karl Rove posted:Someone else correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the assumption that this was more or less the point of stealth: it prevents the 'useful' radar systems from being able to lock onto the plane and thus keep away missiles. Low-frequency radar could tell you "yep, there are planes up in that there sky" but not much beyond that. Yes. I'm pretty sure that's what I posted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
From reading the reasonable explanations in this thread 100% of the actual problems with the F35 are just due to the whole VTOL thing. If they had simply just
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
Well in all fairness designing an airframe to be both land and carrier based is also pretty stupid. Not as stupid as that VTOL bullshit but really at that point were just taking odds on whether the downs kid or forest gump will do better on the MCAT.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 04:37
|
|
